Post Hoc Fallacy

·One rhetorical fallacy that has to do with the logos of the argument is post hoc. This is when one event is assumed to cause another event, just because it occurs beforehand. This is fallacious because in reality, there could be one or more other confounding variables that that also contribute to a result. The first event may not even contribute at all to the second. A way to identify this fallacy is to think critically and ask, "are there any other events that could have caused this result in addition to or instead of the event the author is arguing is the cause?" The author may overlooking other major factors that cause something to occur. One example of this fallacy that comes to mind is when people blame a president for causing a problem in a country just because he became the president prior to it happening. However, we should know that there are many events and trends over the course of time that could lead to a conflict such as an economic crisis and the president should not be the only person or thing to blame. For example some might blame President Bush for the increase in unemployment levels in the 2000s, but who is to say that the same problems would not occur with a different president in office? If someone were to think that it I all Bushes fault, this could be an example of the post hoc fallacy. Another more common example of this fallacy is with various superstitions. Many people have superstitions where they think doing a specific action or ritual before an event makes them perform better or gives them good luck. They think this because they did it once or a few times and an event or performance went well for them. For example, on my basketball team in high school, a girl on the team French braided my hair before the game and then in the game, I played very well and made all my free throws. The next game, she braided my hair again and I played well again. She told me it was her "lucky braids" that did the trick, but I recognized this fallacy and knew that the braids did not cause me to play well. I knew that there were other more logical factors like working hard at practice and trying my best in the game. These are some examples and ways to recognize the logical fallacy of post hoc.

False Analogy

                  When an analogy compares things that have different levels of magnitude, or in other words, that have greater negative or positive connotations than the topic, it is likely a False Analogy. For example, if one were to say that throwing litter out of ones car was like pouring a gallon of nitro glycerin into a small fish tank, then that would be a false analogy. You could say that the fish tank represents the world, and the fish the people, but the problem is the difference in the magnitudes. Though throwing a burger wrapper out the window will take a long time to decompose and will be ugly, it will not have the same terminal effect that a gallon of nitro glycerin in a small fish tank would have. Off course, I don’t really know for sure if nitro glycerin is toxic to fish, but perhaps if an electric eel were in the tank an explosion would occur.

                  Lets look at another example. If someone where to say that being asked to write a 400 word blog post is like having your hands and feet shackled in chains and being forced to strenuously operate an oar in a Roman ship, as happened to the main character in the movie Ben Hur, that would be a false analogy. It would be comparing it to something that is definitely a really bad situation, while life as a college student is not a similar situation. As a student you are willingly paying to receive an education that will be of great benefit to you and your future. While in the case of a slave on a Roman ship, they were there against their will doing something that would not benefit their future, but would rather likely cut their future short.

                  Another way to skew the balance of magnitude in an analogy would be to compare the topic to something that has a stronger positive connotation to make it look better, like saying; the more people ride bikes, the less cars will be driven, resulting in decreased pollution and healthier environments, its like fire fighters rescuing hundreds of baby orphans from a fire. The analogy compares bikes contributing to cleaner environments to the much greater action of saving baby orphans lives.

                  So how can this fallacy be identified in future situations? Simply view the topic and the analogy, and see if they have the same level of magnitude. If they do, then it is probably fine, if the levels are different, then it is likely a fallacy.

Ad Hominem and How Its Killing America

The technical definition of an "Ad Hominem" according to Miriam-Websters is "appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than intellect. In my own terms, I would describe this fallacy in terms of any rhetorical criticism which is not strictly concerned with the facts.

I would argue that the majority of "argument" today comes down to some form of ad hominem (feel free to disagree with me on this, but if you do, please use facts). The unfortunate truth is, when it comes discussing and resolving matters of real importance--those complex, morally ambiguous, and weighty matters which are the constant focus of American politics today--there is not a lot of real discussion and resolution going on.

Let me take a step back and tell you what I see. I'm 21. In the eyes of most adults, I am not yet one of them, however, I have had powers of reasoning for years now, and though they will not likely get much attention for a few more years to come, my mind has been moving along steadily, absorbing the world around me. I have ample reason to believe this is true for the broad majority of my peers as well! Now, let me tell you about that 'seeing' part: during these formative years I've engaged in/observed many political discussions. All you have to do is put a name out there like "Obama", "Glenn Beck" or  "Hillary Clinton" and, depending which side you're talking to, the things you're likely to get back are "socialist", "nutjob" or  "****"[sic.].

Ask a liberal what they think of conservatives or vice versa; you tend to get the same thing. The strength of ad hominem used will only depend on how surrounded by allies the critic is our how anonymous they feel--as in any discussion which takes place on the internet.

This doesn't just apply to people either, even the topics of discussion are subject to the same fallacies. Healthcare Reform is written off as a push for communism, capitalism and free market support as simply greedy and selfish. Nothing is safe from the vitriol. People, policies, ideologies, or anything else can be torn to pieces for being ignorant, ammoral, bigoted, or any variation of the word "insane". I'll pat myself for never falling for this, though I would be lying if I said I've never employed these tactics in my own arguments. (I promise I've repented!)

If this is what's happening among teenagers and young adults, then how can we expect the situation to change anytime soon? And it's worth asking where they rising generation are even getting it from in the first place? Their parents, the news, and any comment ever posted on a youtube video most likely.The fact of the matter is most people wont have a conversation these days. People of differing opinions are now so polarized that they write off everything the other side believes as either utter ignorance, or the product of a cruel and malevolent mind. THIS is ad hominem. And until it stops, we aren't going anywhere.

Confirmation Bias

Though not often noticed, fallacies play a huge part in our society. Whether they are used in writing or real life situations, such as politics, online discussion boards/blogs, or advertising, it is important to recognize them in order to keep from falling into their manipulative trap. Upon looking through lists of fallacies, I have realized just how often these arguments are used today. One in particular that stood out to me is a fallacy called “Confirmation Bias.” This is described as a situation in which a person cherry-picks the information they share with their audience because it supports their specific idea, but they ignore evidence when it contradicts their opinion. I think that this fallacy is extremely prevalent in society, and sometimes the individual may not even be aware they are using it. However, more often than not it is used intentionally in order to be manipulative. Because the person making the argument or claim does not have the ability to refute the opposing evidence, they choose to ignore it and instead they assume that their audience does not have prior knowledge and therefore won’t point out that opposing evidence. Consequently, this fallacy is only “effective” when the audience is unaware of the full picture.

A specific example of “Confirmation Bias” that I read about is when groups of people claim that the 9-11 tragedy was actually a government led conspiracy in order to justify war with Iraq and Afghanistan. They claim that the cause of the collapse was a remote demolition, and that in fact planes did not crash into the side of the building. This argument is fallacious because the individuals making the claim completely ignore evidence, as well as eye witness testimonies, that proves planes were involved in the 9-11 incident.

Another time we may run into “Confirmation Bias” that we should be particularly careful to look out for is when we are preparing to write something such as a research paper. Unless you have absolutely no previous knowledge about the topic question that you are writing about, it is easy to get caught up in researching only the material that would confirm your initial opinion. However, in order to be a truly effective writer, we must always acknowledge both sides of the scale to avoid bias—especially when our goal is to thoroughly inform, not provide half-truths. We can easily recognize (and prevent) this in our own writing; if we remember to consider that there may be more than one answer to a particular argument, we will be able to recognize “Confirmation Bias” in the real world.

All About that Fallacy

Fallacies are used to make an argument credible when in reality it is not. Using fallacies are effective in writing because if the reader is not aware of these techniques, the fallacies persuade the readers and make the argument seem correct. Sometimes we use rhetorical fallacies in our writing and we don’t even notice it. A common fallacy that we tend to use is generalization. There are two types of generalization, hasty and sweeping generalization. Hasty generalization is basically when we “jump to conclusions” with not enough evidence or proof to reach that conclusion. For example, saying all Mormons are boring because they have many “restrictions” they have to follow. People who say this are generalizing that all Mormons are boring, when in reality we can have fun too even though we have these commandments and ordinances we follow. You can probably say a hasty generalization is almost like a stereotype. The other type of generalization is similar to hasty generalization. Sweeping generalizations relating two situations without taking into consideration their differences. For example, saying, “You want be an actor, then go to Hollywood to study acting because that is where actors are usually successful.” This is a reasonable assumption to relate acting with Hollywood because that is the city of the movie industry, but you do not have to go to Hollywood to receive an acting career there are other places to get an education in acting.

I never knew how much rhetorical devices are all around us. We can see rhetorical devices and rhetorical fallacies when we hear people speaking, when we read an article or a book, or when were just walking back to our room. I was walking back to my room listening to music, when the song “All about that Bass” by Meghan Trainor came on. I was listening and thinking about the lyrics and how she uses rhetorical devices to motivate people, girls in particular, to not worry about the way they look. As I was listening I caught a rhetorical fallacy. She uses generalization in her song! When she mentions, “Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase,” she is generalizing that all the “boys like a little more booty to hold at night.” By doing this it makes her audience or girls feel better about themselves because she is telling them that ALL boys like girls that are a little thicker, which is might not be true.

As you can see fallacies can be used almost in every style of communication and sometimes it can be effective, but sometimes it can be a bad idea to overuse fallacies to make something credible.

False Dilemma: This or That

The false dilemma is a rhetorical fallacy often defined under logos. This fallacy is a common one used in everyday life. False dilemma is giving only two options when there are other choices available, but not mentioned. This fallacy is used to limit a reader’s choices and coerce them into making the choice the author wants. 

Typically an author will present the two choices in which one is clearly better then the other. An example of this that is commonly used in religion is the sin or righteousness. However, our choices are not so black and white. Another common use of the false dilemma fallacy is present two equally good (or bad) choices. I trick myself with this method each morning when deciding what to wear. I have to pick two clothing options to narrow down my closet. Otherwise I will spend all morning switching outfits. I also use this fallacy when debating on doing homework or watching Netflix. I could do my homework. I could watch Netflix. Alternatively, I could nap; I could eat ice cream; I could go out and socialize. I find that this is a really effective rhetorical device on me. My mom has also discovered this fact. Many nights she will give me choices between doing the dishes or picking up my sister from her activity. She also uses this to let us choose our punishments; no friends or no phone. Neither option is better than the other. These are not my only two options but the manner in which my mother presents them, make it seem as though they are. 

Authors (and parents)  know how we think. We are undecided when given so many choices. By paring in down to only two choices, we quickly can make a decision. Authors can then guide the thought process in the direction they wish. The false dilemma fallacy is an easy one to fall victim to. As a critical reader, we need to look out for this fallacy. There are several key characteristics of this fallacy that can make it easy to spot. One is the use of ‘or’. This or that. Cream or sugar. Another is special phrases such as would you rather…. This phrase is especially effective on the unsuspecting reader. A third characteristic is the life or death choice. When this fallacy is used, often there seems to be a black and white choice. Social issue arguers often rely on this. Protecting babies or murdering babies. Emotionally charged language is critical in these choices. The perhaps the biggest indicator of the false dilemma fallacy is the taking away choices. When analyzing an argument think beyond what the author says the two directions are. What is my personal opinion on this subject? Authors use rhetorical fallacies like false dilemma because they are effective at forcing readers to think the way an author wishes. This fallacy is especially common in everyday life. Through critical analysis and observation we will not fall victim to this fallacy. 

Hasty and Sweeping Generalizations

The fallacies I chose to write about are hasty generalization and sweeping generalization. A hasty generalization is basically a fancy way of saying when people jump to conclusions or an over generalization. It’s taken from a smaller sample of something, so that people assume just because it’s true for a small population it’s true for everyone. The book Writing & Rhetoric specifically defines it as, “A conclusion formed on scant evidence” (McInelly & Jackson 89). 

I can avoid this in the future by thinking before writing or saying any general assumption. Instead of saying something like “it hasn’t snowed yet in Utah, so it must not have snowed any where in the world yet” I could change it to “it hasn’t snowed yet in Utah, has it snowed in any other place in the world?” Even that isn’t the best way; the smartest option would be to not say anything like that at all unless you have concrete evidence proving it. I’ve encountered this fallacy in my life before when peer reviewing papers and someone makes a generalization about everyone likes this or that.

            

A sweeping generalization is almost exactly like a hasty generalization, but regarding two situations that don’t always go together. The book’s definition for a sweeping generalization is, “Applying a statement that is true for one particular situation to another situation without considering how the two situations differ” (McInelly & Jackson 89). It would be something like, “I didn’t study at all for the test, and I got a pretty good grade, therefore no one needs to study for the test to get a good grade!” Just because it’s true for one person doesn’t mean it’s true for every scenario. There will probably be a lot of students that don’t study and still get a bad grade (that right there, my friends, was a sweeping generalization. You’re welcome). 

In the past I’ve heard the sweeping generalization fallacy in many situations. My parents have told me before to get me to practice piano that some famous pianist just practiced a lot when he was little and now he’s super good, so if I just practice every day I can become famous. Now, while practicing would have helped me become a more accomplished pianist, it isn’t very likely that just practicing every day could make me famous. It’s best to try to avoid these fallacies as best you can.

Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy that refers to a personal attack that has nothing to do with the argument. I chose to pick this fallacy because I believe that it is everywhere we look. Whether it is in politics, religion, business, tabloids and even in our own personal lives, people use ad hominem to get out of sticky situations. It is one of the easiest fallacies to catch because the person avoids the question or argument and attempts to tarnish their opponent’s reputation instead. People naturally do not like getting blamed and in trouble, so, they often put someone else into a worse position to get themselves out of trouble and hopefully in good favor. Or they might not even be in trouble, but they want to look better by making everyone else look bad.

One of the most prominent places we will see ad hominem is in politics. Politics are known for using different tactics to avoid questions. Ad hominem is one of those tactics that saturates the political world, especially when it comes to campaigning. While looking at political ad hominem examples, I saw many titles suggesting that President Obama is the “Ad hominem President”. One of the stories I saw was at a fundraising event in New York City in 2013. President Obama talks about the problems with congress not being able to move forward. He blames many of the problems on his opposing political party, the Republicans. He says, “I genuinely believe there are Republicans out there who would like to work with us but they are fearful of their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about them…”  Instead of taking some responsibility as a President and addressing what can be done (which is what the question was), he immediately blames the opposing party and Rush Limbaugh who has nothing to do with congress. He makes the Republican Party seem petty with a concern of what someone might say about them. Instead of encouraging all of congress to figure things out, making everyone to blame, he attempts to tarnish the reputation of his opposing party and a man who does not agree with his agenda.

We are no less to blame. Everyone has used ad hominem at least once before in their lifetime. When we were younger, we all seemed to use this fallacy to get out of trouble. After eating treats that we knew we should not have, we attempt to make our accomplice seem worse than us by listing everything that they have done wrong and concluding that all we did was have one cookie! By personally attacking someone else, we hope that our reputation will look better than theirs, and either avoid the question or avoid getting into more serious trouble. 

Red Herring

Politicians often use rhetorical fallacies in their arguments to make what they are saying appear more correct, and to encourage their audience to agree with what they are saying. A convincing fallacy that is often used is the Red Herring argument. This fallacy is an attempt at distracting an audience from the main point so that they will not see the flaws in the argument being made. Often the distractions have an emotional appeal, which brings an audience in and tends to make them agree with the Politian more fully.

To recognize this fallacy, one must pay attention to what the main topic of the argument being made is. Once a speaker has strayed away from that topic to bring in emotional issues that do not have to do with the main point, than it is safe to say that the speaker is putting the fallacy of Red Herring into practice. This tool is effective to use because it distracts from many times controversial subjects, and focuses on another subject that most people will find common ground with, even though it is not directly related.

I have seen the effectiveness of this fallacy myself when I have fallen victim to it in President Nixon’s resignation speech from 1979. The President uses the Red Herring fallacy very effectively. In the speech he briefly addresses the issue at hand, which is that he knowingly spied on the Democratic party, and then attempted to cover it up by denying that he had any knowledge or role in the crime. After he tells the United States what is to be done after his resignation, he goes on to list all of his accomplishments as President, which takes up half of his speech. He talks of how he has improved international relationships with the Middle East, China, and the Soviet Union. He then goes on to talk about the success the United States has had in ending a war during his presidency. Nixon also takes a moment to list his personal accomplishments, stating that he has served the United States as a Congressman, Senator, Vice President and President. While all of these things are good, they do not address the issue at hand, which is that the President committed a crime, and then lied to the American people about it. The reason he utilized the Red Herring fallacy was because it illustrated to the public not what he did wrong, but all the accomplishments he made, all the while making US citizens feel proud of their country and the recent successes that were made. When I read the President’s speech for the first time, I could not help but fell proud of the accomplishments that were made, and that was exactly the point.