I bet when you read the description of this series, you expected me to go into Logical Fallacies. If you look closely, I have. That a simpler answer is truer than a complex answer creates and opening for the logical fallacy, Causal Reductionism, and bad simple answers often derive from other fallacies (Argument from Authority, Jumping to Conclusions, etc.) One of the reasons complex answers need to be checked is to make sure they aren’t built on fallacies. In addition, complexity can be used as one, Argumentum Verbosium. Without a consistent standard of evidence, many fallacies become possible (Moving the Goal Post, Double Standard, etc.). Burden of Proof or Onus Probandi, is an established philosophical principle. Shifting it is a fallacy. And, Lack of B.S. Filter encompasses an entire category. But, there’s a reason I do not take this approach. Except in an academic setting, I have never seen an argument resolved, opinion changed, or person persuaded by pointing out the logical fallacy in their position. The common mistake smart people make is that they don’t understand why logical fallacies are so enduring.

Now, don’t get me wrong. You should learn about logical fallacies and practice avoiding them. To have a functioning B.S. Filter, you need to recognize when others are making them. Ignoring logical fallacies is a sure was to be a “smart person making mistakes”. So, let me say it again. You should learn about logical fallacies and practice avoiding them.

But pointing out the logical fallacies others is different. It’s rude. Don’t do that. No one likes it, just as no one likes having their grammar corrected mid-speech. (If you do that, stop it as well) Yes, I know we all must be corrected sometimes. Figuring out how and when to correct someone is part of learning to deal with people (as is how to respond when being corrected). If your friend tells you he’s joined the Holy Church of Flattery and Flimflam, you should probably keep your mouth shut. If he starts to mortgage his house to give to buy the Grand Flimflammer a hot tub, you should probably speak up.

The message is that logic is for enriching your lives and others, not for your ego. Being a jerk persuades no one, no matter how good your logic is. (Unfortunately, though, exploiting logical fallacies is a good way to exploit others. We’ll get more into that.)

Putting etiquette aside, we must understand that logic does not prove right or wrong. It shows that the argument proves something or proves nothing. You can make the most ridicules argument and still be right. Insisting that a ridicules argument must be false because it is ridiculous is called an Argument from Fallacy. Furthermore, you can make the most logically strict argument and still be wrong. If you understand how bad data and no B.S. Filter affects conclusions, this makes perfect sense. A perfectly logical argument based on bad or insufficient data is still a bad argument. (Some of you are about to comment that basing an argument on bad or insufficient data is not a perfectly logic argument. What did I just tell you about doing that?)

Imagine what happens when your friend (or worse your boss) makes a ridiculous statement, you describe in detail why it is ridiculous, and he turns out to be right? A long time will follow before you regain your credibility, especially when you were a jerk about it. (Yes, I was the jerk. How do think I got the idea for this post.)

The temptation is to believe that the ridiculous arguer got lucky, and then you would be making another common mistake. Those of us who’ve learned to recognize logical fallacies often believe that others make them out of ignorance or bias. That certainly is part of it, and a big part, but what you should also learn is that what we know as logical fallacies often came from pragmatic thinking developed through tradition and evolution.

Let’s consider the Affirming the Consequent fallacy. The fallacy states that just because a result (the consequent) happens, you can’t assume a particular cause happened. Lewis Carol made use of its illogic in his book, Alice in Wonderland:

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

The fallacy points out that just because we know a cause produces a certain result, that does not mean automatically the result indicates the cause happened. There can be multiple causes that produce the same result.

Now let’s consider the saying, “there’s smoke, so there must be fire”. This is Affirming the Consequent. The smoke could also have come from another source, like dry ice. In everyday life, however, many results have a likely cause. Dry ice is rare, fire is common. When dealing with the lack of data and a deadline, we may have to make choices assuming the most likely cause. If you see smoke in a building, you should call the fire department.

If a cause and result are not related or the cause is not the most common to produce the result, people will keep making bad choices and, over time, they will stop Affirming the Consequent in that circumstances. No one ever said, “there’s smoke, so there must be dry ice”. At this point, we would not call the saying, “there’s smoke, so there must be fire”,  a fallacy, but instead a heuristic. A heuristic is a fancy word for “rule of thumb” or “educated guess”, a process or technique that will not always lead us to a correct conclusion, but often enough to be practical. And that’s the point.  Behind many common fallacies, there is a hidden heuristic.

Whether a common fallacy survives also happens from consequence. Choices we make depend not only on their likelihood of being true but what bad can happen if they are ignored. If you see smoke coming from a dry ice factory, you should still call the fire department. And this can be the problem. Many times, the circumstances no longer apply or we can manipulate consequences, so others suffer instead. This is how many superstitions and prejudices survive. We want to move ourselves and others forward. But, just recognizing the logical fallacies won’t do it. We also need to understand how the fallacy has survived. Only then can we persuade others to be more logical. As to how to do the second? I’ll let you know when I figure it out. (Maybe if I wrote a blog. Nah, that’s just crazy talk.) For now, I can just tell you that being an arrogant jerk makes it worse.

Unfortunately, we can’t just ignore logical fallacies and hope for the best, which seems to be what most do. However, heuristically practical a logical fallacy is, it still is a logical flaw that can lead us astray. And, if someone wants to, they can use them intentionally to fool us. You can pick up a list of logical fallacies and treat it as a conman’s “how to” manual. Consider this. Lawyers are trained in logic and how to recognize logical fallacies. Most politicians were lawyers.