I have learned so much about what I did not absorb in my philosophy classes that I intend to write about logical fallacies in months to come.  But at least for today we can agree that this will be the final logical fallacy entry.  Our agreeing on this as the last entry is called peticio princpii or “begging the question.”

This is a rhetorical trick to get another person to concede a point giving the underlying assumption that what follows has been already accepted.

Remember the joke of a woman holding a rather large dog by the leash and a guy comes up and says “Does your dog bite?”  and the woman says “No.”  The guy goes to pet the dog and the dog bites him.  The man says “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite.”  She responds, “That’s not my dog”

Somehow they both entered into an understanding that the dog on her leash was her dog.  You both conceded that point.  That’s known as begging the question; a common logical fallacy.

The most common logical fallacy seen regularly on my FaceBook  is the hasty generalization.   This is where a person takes one data point and does a sweeping generalization to make it seemk true as a trend.

For example a person says “All politicians are liars.” And she cites a lie by Hillary Clinton as proof. I use this example because I actually believe this statement to be true.  But in reality there must be a politician who is not a liar. (statistics suggest this) But the person making this statement about the lies of Hillary Clinton is engaging in another logical fallacy. This person is actually saying that because all politicians are liars, then elect my liar because she lies better, because she is a woman, because I like her….

And finally argumentum ad ignoratiam the appeal to ignorance.  This occurs when someone uses both sides of the syllogism to support their claim.  No one has scientifically proven the existence of God so it is possibly true. At the same time using the same logic that since no one has proven the existence of God, He does not exist.  Both are fallacious as they each use the same argument to prove their point.

There are simple ways to combat these fallacies.  But my purpose is not to be right but to seek the truth.  So I use these techniques of logical fallacies to keep me on track by not following an illogical path.

In my attempt to explain logical fallacies I have opened up an avenue for me to see things in a check list form.  I have found something to keep me balanced in the face of persuasive rhetoric from people I like.  We tend to like people who think like us.  I just like people and accept the way they think.  I have found people who have the ability to press my buttons and it is on these occasions that I learn the most about myself.

Back in Aristotle’s day he confronted a group called the Sophists.  The Sophists sought to use rhetoric solely as a tool to convince another that their argument was accurate.  (kind of like advertising)  While Aristotle used rhetoric to find the Truth as it stood by itself.

So I collected common logical fallacies and used them in my search to find what I gleaned to be the truth.  In my quest I found these fallacies in my posts.  For example, when I asked the question, “What is your opinion on abortion?”  the most common response was “It’s a woman’s choice.”

That response is known as ignoratio elenchi or missing the point or irrelevant conclusion.  I asked A and they answered B. Since my goal is to find out information to base my opinions on using a logical foundation, this fallacy helped me delineate both the question and the way people think; in this case illogically.

Another fallacy is the Tu quoque which translates to “you too.” In this fallacy rather than respond to the question you attack the person as a hypocrite.  In fact the person may be a hypocrite but this particular argument may be true.

Another fallacy is the red herring.  This is where the person changes the argument to something favorable to their view.  Let’s use a most common argument.  “President Obama is really taking us down a path of destruction in foreign policy.”

“Oh what about the path that President Bush and his mad dog Cheney did.”  I read versions of this on FaceBook daily.

I am writing these  posts for my benefit.  I don’t want to be a sophist and use rhetoric to convince you how clever  or knowledgeable I am.  I simply want to walk away from my computer with a logical, thoughtful explanation to myself on how I come to have a belief.

By using these fallacies as road signs, I can actually put my ideas on a page and see if they fit a logical pattern.  In this process, I have learned much about myself particularly as it relates to another person’s way of thinking.  I have to ask myself questions like, “Do I want to correct their statement? (always a bad idea)  How do I keep a straight face?  Did she say what I thought she said?  Isn’t that contrary to what she just said?  How do I walk away with us remaining friends?

I can no longer listen to political speeches without naming the fallacy.  The kicker, to me, is the fact check afterwards.  They missed the rhetoric that shifted a correct piece of information, because it was correct, and how it was meant to sway the following lies.

The HUFFINGTON POST is the most egregious at writing rhetorical pieces that are misleading at best.  I still read it because their misinformation tells me to go looking for the truth.  Make no mistake, you have to be a good writer to put across these fallacies.  To an unknowing public this can be detrimental.

I still don’t know how to address the person who illogically reasons what I have found to be a logical conclusion.  For example, taking a hot topic – abortion;  I could sit here and write syllogism after syllogism, using inversions, converses and contrapositives proving my point and disproving another  thought process.  (add to that – ethos)  I will never change the thinking of another on this topic.  I get it.  Move on.  Nothing changes.  But then you have the far right guy who says abortion is wrong because God deemed it so.  Now I’m stuck holding a logical thought process next to a person proselytizing what I found to be elementary.  Makes me think of changing my opinion, but that would be illogical.

“If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail,” is an adage my mother imparted to me.  When I became a psychologist I saw behavior as a mental abnormality. When I became a neuropsychologist those same behaviors became physical in origin.  My tool box held more tools.

“Opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one,” is another adage from my mother.  This proved problematic for me because I had a desire to be accepted and liked by others.  When they said things that I believed untrue, I had to either accept their logic or argue and possibly lose a friend.

Over time I realized that there are certain types of people that have no logic.  They may have education but no logic.  So I used logic to apply to arguments thinking this would save friendships.

Finding my logic sound and their logic faulty I came upon another adage my mother said,” it’s like pissing up a rope.”  She often left these sayings unexplained but years later I realized that arguing logically with an illogical thinker is like pissing up a rope.

So I opted to collect these illogical processes , keep quiet, accept my friends as they were and be content in the knowledge that I had used logic upon which to base my thinking.  When I met other logical thinkers I enjoyed their thinking.  If I were a dog my tail would have wagged.  I had good success in keeping friends but poor success in finding logical partners.  I actually moved to a country where the North Americans reveal the resultant damage of years of illogic.

The most common form of illogic is what Aristotle referred to as asserting the consequent.  Another fallacy is denying the antecedent.  I would practice and plot out the syllogism for example,

If it is a fish

Then it lives under water

Denying the consequent is reversing this to read

If it lives under water,

Then it is a fish. (of course this is false)

I learned several things in my logic studies.  First people do not have facts.  They tend to fill in the blanks with what they believe or hear through media.  Surprisingly, they do not change their thinking when given the facts.

Secondly, they misuse the facts they have by adhering to a fallacious form or reasoning.

Thirdly, nearly every discussion has the underlying understanding that I am ignorant.  For example, in a recent discussion on abortion I was informed of the overwhelming number of incest cases that needed abortions.  Since incest was not the question and I did not know the number of estimated pregnancies due to incest, I differed.

Looked up the U.S. statistics, which are tabulated state by state by the Guttmacher Institute, I learned the estimate  of unwanted pregnancies due to incest to be around one per cent.

The point being, you must not accept the initial premise until you have the facts.  The initial premise, the point of agreement in any argument, must be clearly spelled out.

Lastly, I learned that once a person’s mind is made on any subject, they seek reasons to substantiate their belief, regardless of the facts.  In order to bring this about, they will resort to a myriad of logical fallacies.

Klingons are by culture politically incorrect.  But they would be accepted in America, not as a counter culture, but as different.  And accepting the different is acceptable, even fashionable, in the U.S.

The Klingons could talk against gays, women and various selected minorities and their comments would be accepted by the media and powers that be.  But if an individual, not of the accepted group, made these comments she would be vilified.  This vilification would be enhanced if she was not a member of the prevailing media political culture.

To be clear, if you want to exercise your free speech, do it as a minority or a Klingon

If you had two people running for political office and one was very religious and another was not.  And you came to find out that the religious person followed the 10 commandments strictly while the other had a track record of lies(characterized as misstatements) and relationships with people who broke the law.

Would you call one immoral?  Would you call the other moral?  Just on this information who would you want as your representative?