H M Bascom

Internet forums are rife with logical fallacy. It can be frustrating to engage in debate with a person who asserts one logical fallacy after another. You can fall prey to debating the fallacy rather than the issue unless you are familiar with some of the more common errors in logic. I have addressed only a few common fallacies.

---

Argument from innuendo is a statement that directs the reader/listener to a (derogatory) conclusion, but does not explicitly make that (derogatory) assertion.

Examples

(1) His wife works late a lot these days. I wonder if her handsome boss works late too?
conclusion – she is sleeping with her boss

(2) She writes such sad poetry. I wonder what her home life is like?
conclusion – she has an unhappy home life

(3) You know, he was questioned by the FBI about that bank robbery.
conclusion – he must be a suspect

When a person makes an implicit assertion, it is their intent to draw you to a specific conclusion. The person making the implicit assertion should be required to justify their unspoken statement as if they had stated the conclusion explicitly. Invariably the person making the argument by innuendo will deny that they intended the obvious conclusion. If the speaker/writer refuses to defend their implicit assertion, insist that they explicitly deny the implicit assertion.

---

A distinction without a difference is the attempt to advance a point of view as distinct from another view. In reality, the two views are not at all different in substance. It is a manipulation of language, and a fallacy.

Examples

We must judge the writer by what the article actually says and not by what someone tells us it says.

No writing can interpret itself. All readers are interpreters. Therefore, there is no intelligible distinction to be drawn between what the article says and the interpretation of the article.

I’m not saying anything against interracial marriage, but I firmly believe that people of different races should not marry

Let’s break this one down to it’s component assertions.

PREMISE: I believe people of different races should not marry.
IMPLICIT PREMISE: Since there is no contradiction between miscegenation and the view that interracial marriage is acceptable. . .
CONCLUSION: Therefore I have no serious disagreement interracial marriage.

The PREMISE and the CONCLUSION are contradictory. The arguer against interracial marriage asserts no contradiction in their statement by the IMPLICIT PREMISE.

Do you think the following statements are distinctions without a difference?

(1) I’m not saying anything bad about you, but I think your ideas are stupid.
(2) I’m not against equality for women, I just think women have traditional roles in society.
(3) I’m not saying that art and politics don’t mix, but I think politics does not belong on a commercial art site.
(4) I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with nude photography, I just happen to believe that women should not expose their bodies publicly.

---

Attacking the straw man occurs frequently when the debate becomes heated. This fallacy consists of misrepresentation of the opponents position.

Example

Maria: There is no legal, moral, or ethical reason why women should be paid less than men for the same work. Yet, women are, on average, paid 20% less than men in our society. I think Congress should enact legislation that requires employers to pay equal wages for equal work.

Joe: If you want big government in every aspect of our lives then that is your problem. I think you just want special treatment because you are a woman. That makes you a sexist!

Joe has distorted Maria’s argument and drawn an unsupported inference. Joe asserts that Maria supports “big government” that will invade “every aspect” of an individual’s life. This inference is not supported by Maria’s statement. Also, Joe infers that Maria wants “special treatment” because she is a woman and therefore she is a “sexist.” All of these inferences are an oversimplification of the original argument to the point it is not even recognizable in his reply. The only way rational to respond to this fallacy is to restate your argument and ask if the responder has misunderstood. If the responder has intentionally misrepresented your argument, there is little else you can do but continue to assert your argument. Debate on your own terms, and never fall into the trap of defending the misrepresentation of your argument. It would be error to respond to Joe in the above example by asserting “I am NOT a sexist” or “I am not for big government.” You will have taken the bait of misrepresentation of your own argument and end up defending against the distortion of your own view rather than debating the issue.

---

Guilt by association is often used as an attempt to discredit your source. It is a manipulation of the flow of the debate by shifting focus from the lack of support for their position to a negative impression of the character of the source you cite or the person whose views you support.

Examples

You know, his partner was convicted of perjury.
inference – he is a liar because his associate is a liar

His political science professor in college is a Communist, how can we trust him to be a not to turn our country into a Communist state?
inference – his professor is a Communist therefore he must be a Communist too

This fallacy is glaring in its illogical nature, however it is frequently used as an attempt to discredit the source. It is the old birds of a feather argument.

How can you support Governor Sims views on drunk driving laws when he was arrested for drunk driving when he was in college?
inference – because he was once arrested for DUI, Governor Sims’ view must be disregarded

If Governor Sims supports legislation providing for stricter penalties for drunk driving, would you not support such legislation because the Governor has a past DUI? That is not logical. The character of the person espousing a view is not relevant to the merit of the view itself. Try to keep the debate on the merits of the view, and away from the character of the person who holds the view.

---

Here is a great book on the art of logical reasoning:

Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments

---

Other articles on logical fallacy

Red Herrings