Have you ever read an article or listened to a speech and thought to yourself, "Something about this just doesn't click."
You were probably right, since neither papers nor orators tend to make clicking sounds.
More to the point, you probably found a logical fallacy, which inhabit all but the very best arguments.
I do this all the time when I receive blatantly irrelevant and illogical comments dismembering my carefully wrought columns.
Especially when I'm being told I'm an insult to my major, a disgrace to the State Press and generally a horrible human being.
I may be making niceties in return, but in reality, you know I'm seething about the "argumentum ad autcoritam" appearing in past "Letters to the Editor."
So here are your options when commenting on a column — effectively refute those dreadful arguments or sound like a blathering dolt to even your closest friends. With that, your first lesson begins. I just gave you what is called a false dilemma: two choices when in reality there are three or four or more.
In addition to the options I gave you, here are some others. You can dismantle my argument and still sound like an idiot. Or, you could even agree with me!
See how easy that was?
The next goal is to be able to identify slippery slope arguments. If you can't do this you're doomed in nearly every debate. In fact, you're probably going to be doomed in life.
All across the state auto mechanics will laugh at your gullibility and skip happily to the bank. Little old ladies who supposedly need help crossing the street will even take advantage of you.
This string of consequences is exactly the kind of vile argument I'm trying to vaccinate you against. It was a slippery slope, a series of increasingly large leaps from the original proposition. Even though you know this I'm betting that the little old ladies will still take advantage of you.
Now let's examine the fallacy that inspired this tirade against bad logic, the appeal to authority (also known as the infamous "argumentum ad autcoritam").
There are ways to cite authorities and then there are ways to cite authorities (you'll get what I mean soon enough).
The first incidence of this is where the authority is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject. This is akin to taking fashion advice from a chemistry professor — in other words, you just don't do it. They may know chemistry, but they don't know fashion. Trust me.
If experts on the field disagree about the subject, an "expert" opinion is also invalid. This would be the case if you couldn't get your English professors to come to a consensus about the best author of all time.
The final inappropriate use takes advantage of situations: The authority was joking, drunk, or otherwise under duress. It's not fair to quote your professor if you find him huddled the corner over a pint of Guiness and swearing that the reason birds fly is thanks to the little jet packs on their backs.
It is fair to snap a photo and do with it as your conscience would have you.
Please don't stop reading this article. I know you're bored. I know I'm a miserable wretch, but it would mean so very much to me if you would continue.
Won't you help to bring a little sunshine to a weary columnist, please?
That is what we call an appeal to pity. It's a fairly obvious tactic — I convince you of how pathetic I really am and you let me win because you feel sorry for me.
Hah! You are still reading, mere mortal!
Since you're still with me I'm going to teach you about complex questions. These are fun. Complex questions treat two unrelated points as a single proposition, usually through the improper use of the "and" operator.
Example: Do you agree with freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms?
Maybe I believe in freedom of speech, but I think those gun-toting NRA members should all be backhanded. It is equally possible that I worship my president and think guns should be distributed to children but that freedom of speech should be squashed like a bug.
You can't answer this type of question without being stuck in a trap. You're only legitimate option is to identify the propositions illegitimately conjoined and to show that one is not directly linked to the other.
This tactic is also useful when your girlfriend asks, "Have you stopped looking at other girls yet?" This asks two questions: Did you look at other girls, and did you stop?
Merely point this out and you're off the hook!
As a right thinking member of ASU's campus here, you will agree with me that logical fallacies are dangerous and should be countered. You'll catch things like the use of prejudicial language in the sentence prior to this one. You'll know that the way to counter loaded terms ("right thinking") is to point out that one can be "right thinking" without agreeing with me.
This guide to fallacies is by no means comprehensive. If you're interested in clarifying these points or learning about other fallacies check out Brian Yoder's "Fallacy Zoo" online at www.primenet.com/~byoder/fallazoo.htm. It's as entertaining as it is concise.
Now go out there and don't come back 'til you've caught me some fallacies!
North Noelck is a biology sophomore. Reach him at north.noelck@asu.edu.
