You can find a lot of information on the web on what fallacies are and how to identify them. This is only natural- we want to find fallacies in other people’s arguments, so the web is going to provide a lot of tools to do so. What I find is seldom discussed, however, is how one can go wrong when calling out a fallacy- so much of this happens these days, especially since ‘fallacy’ became a popular part of internet forum speak, that I thought I’d go into to some detail on when NOT to call out a fallacy. Here are some loose rules to keep in mind when reading another person’s argument.
1.) People naturally avoid fallacies most of the time.
Yes, even THOSE people- those people that hold that position that you think no rational human being can hold. A true fallacy is a violation of common sense as much as technical sense, and people know to avoid them- they don’t FEEL right. This is true even of people unfamiliar with philosophy. As such, when you think you see an obvious, glaring fallacy in somebody’s argument, (especially circular arguments, ad hominem arguments, and arguments from authority which in truth people almost never make, but are constantly ‘discovered’ by critics), the first thing you should be thinking is that the problem lies with you- that you misread the argument, or that you are making one of the mistakes I will describe below.
2.) Stick to analyzing what’s relevant.
This causes SO much trouble in discussions. Fallacies only matter when they are relevant to the argument the person is trying to make. An obvious example:
“My mother said that if you take guns away from the people, you take away their only means of protecting themselves from their own Government.”
When confronted with the above, you should NOT call argument from authority. What you have above is an argument against gun control. The fact that the speaker is relating where they heard the argument is simply not pertinent. To call this a fallacy and to focus the conversation on that is a sidetrack that wastes everybody’s time.
A less obvious example:
"Hume believed in God, you moron."
Contrary to very popular belief, the above is NOT an [i]ad hominem[/i]. The person is basing no argument or position on the assertion that you are a moron. While obviously you might not want to continue interacting with somebody who addresses you in such a fashion, if you DO continue to speak with them, be aware that the above is not a fallacy. In order for [i]ad hominem[/i] to be committed, you'd need something like this:
"You are a moron, therefore Hume believed in God."
Where the assault on your character is given as evidence of the position taken. As you might expect, true[i] ad hominems[/i] are either very rare or very subtle. In short, keep in mind that a statement is not fallacious unless it is a premise upon which an argument is actually built. People say things off the cuff or to flavor their speech in one way or another all the time, and there is no use in getting caught up in them. Further complicating matters, is this:
"I don't believe you because you're a liar".
While this is basing an argument on a statement about your personal character, it's a [i]relevant[/i] aspect of your character and may not be fallacious.
Oh, and basing an argument on a [i]complimentary[/i] comment about somebody's character is an ad hominem too. People seem to forget this.
3.) Fallacious argument forms are often still good arguments.
Most arguments you will see on these forums (and in life) are not deductive- they do not mean to imply that the conclusion is necessarily, unavoidably true given the premises. They are [i]inductive[/i]- they mean to imply that the conclusion is more likely than not, or more likely than it would have been otherwise given the premises. Another way to put it is that most fallacies are useful to debunk the [i]validity[/i] of an argument, but most arguments on these forums aren't seeking validity, they are seeking [i]cogency[/i]- that their premises lend support to their conclusion. So for example,
"Well, just about every scientist believes in the existence of human-caused global warming, so it probably does exist."
Well, clearly an argument from authority- but guess what? It's probably a GOOD argument from authority- as long as the speaker isn't saying that anything most scientists believe [i]must necessarily be true[/i], it is perfectly reasonable to point out that the consensus of experts is a good reason to believe something.
When you're about to call out a fallacy, one of the things you should reflect on is, "Is this behavior I'm about to call fallacious something that every human being needs to do in order to get on in their daily life?" If so, it's probably a fallacious argument form that occasionally (or often, or nearly always) lends cogency. That's right- when applied to induction, a fallacy is only a particular form of argument that should be scrutinized harder. It may well be cogent, rational, and good to use.
An example I encountered recently is the Slippery Slope Fallacy. This is a very difficult fallacy to diagnose correctly specifically because the argument [i]form[/i] is used in perfectly reasonable ways all the time. The argument [i]form[/i] is nothing more than arguing that
If A happens, B is likely, and if B happens, C is likely, and if C happens, D is likely, (insert as many steps as you like) and since D is terrible, we ought to avoid A.
But this form of argument by itself isn't problematic at all, and is very often true- if you start writing bad checks all over town, then people will stop accepting your checks, and if people stop accepting your checks, you may find yourself in desperate need of a purchase one day and no way to pay for it. Therefore, you ought to avoid writing bad checks. It's the Slippery Slope form, but it also happens to be true. Note that in my check example, I didn't bother to support any of the steps given- that doesn't make the reasoning bad, but I should be prepared to support "if you write bad checks all over time, then people will stop accepting your checks" if I am called upon to do so.
So when is Slippery Slope [i]actually[/i] problematic? Two situations come to mind.
A.) When a person is making a [i]deductive[/i] argument, and assuming each step in the argument is [i]absolutely certain[/i], and thus the conclusion is certain from the original premise. In fact, people almost never do this.
B.) When a person fails to take into account the compounding probabilities of each step in their chain, how those probabilities diminish the whole, and assume that D is much more likely given A than in fact it is. This happens somewhat more often- a person worries about D being likely, even though it's just one of many possible outcomes to A- they haven't actually examined the[i] likelihood[/i] of D given A, but they are acting as though the likelihood is high because that particular scenario troubles them so much.
As you can see, there is some subjectivity here. When you aren't talking about deduction, fallacies are a great deal more complex than wikipedia or some other single source would have you believe. If you aren't clear on the difference between deduction and other forms of argument, it's best to keep your mouth shut about fallacies in the first place, because understanding this is absolutely essential to understanding them.
4.) Be Charitable.
Nine times out of ten, the above confusions can be avoided simply by assuming your 'opponent' is at least as smart as you are. Ask yourself "Would I make a mistake as basic as what they seem to be making"? or "If I said what they just said, what would I mean?" If you're going to bother to discuss something with somebody, you should be trying to find out what they really mean, how it's relevant to what you think, and how best to interact with it. Trying to 'one-up' people based on the technicalities of how they phrased something is precisely the kind of behavior that gives 'arguing on the internet' the reputation it has.
5.) And for those of you who just REALLY love to spot fallacies…
I may as well identify a legitimate fallacy that you can look for when talking to people. In my opinion, the single most commonly made fallacy that goes unidentified is equivocation- specifically equivocation between stipulated and connotative definitions of words. This is endemic in political speech, and shows up quite a bit in other sorts of arguments too.
For example, an anti-abortion advocate may argue that abortion technically fits some stipulated or dictionary definition of ‘murder’. Having so argued, they will then go on to assume that abortion is thusly a hideously evil act that should be prevented at all costs. Or better yet, they will continually refer to abortion as ‘murder’ (because they showed it fits one definition), while taking it for granted that murder is always wrong, thus condemning abortion by implication.
This is fallacious (in the bad way)- if the stipulated definition of ‘murder’ did not include that murder is always a hideously evil act, then you can’t change your definition later to include it just because that’s what most people think when they hear the word ‘murder’. Arguing that something fits a certain definition entails nothing other than what is explicitly stated in that definition. Everything else has to be demonstrated. Another popular example would be ‘discrimination’- technically, ‘discrimination’ just means to prefer or choose one thing over another. Using this loose definition to show that something counts as ‘discrimination’, then implying that the act in question is immoral (because ‘discrimination’ is these days used mainly to talk about immoral things) without further argument would be fallacious.
An easy way to spot this is when somebody appears to be hung up on arguing about the definitions of words, especially when the words in question have strong moral or emotional implications. When this is happening, you can bet somebody involved is going to commit an equivocation.
