The Lagoon TechMy little blog in Cyberspace.

What exactly is circular reasoning? Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by assuming what you are trying to prove is already true. In other words, instead of using A to prove B true, you are using B – itself – to prove B true. This is a bad way to argue.

Here is an example. Larry tells Mike about a new spray cleaner that will clean anything on any surface. Mike is intrigued and asks Larry how he knows the new cleaner will clean anything. Larry explains to Mike it will clean anything because it says so on the label.

Notice what happened? Larry used the bottle’s label to prove that the label is true. This is not a proper way to argue, since you are not proving anything. At best, you are showing you have faith the label is telling the truth.

This may be a surprise to you, but circular reasoning is not always a logical fallacy. There are arguments made with circular reasoning that are valid and can be applied without issue.

One example of a good circular argument is the following: “If we did not have laws of logic, we could not make any arguments. Since we all can make arguments, laws of logic must exist.”

This circular argument is valid. Laws of logic must be assumed to be true, otherwise no arguments could ever be made. If you were to argue the laws of logic do not exist, you would be using the “laws of logic” to claim that the laws of logic do not exist. That does not make any sense.

Summary: Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by assuming what you are trying to prove is already true. However, there are times when circular arguments are valid and make sense to use in a discussion.

Let’s first get a definition of “ad hominem”.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “ad hominem” as: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

This logical fallacy is when someone directs their argument at the person who gave the information, instead of the person’s position in the argument.

For example, Martin tells Kyle he thinks sports cars do not have good gas mileage, and people are better off not buying them. Kyle responds with calling Martin an idiot and tells him he is wrong.

You see what happened? Kyle did not give any countering information to show Martin being incorrect. Instead Kyle disrespected Martin while making himself look silly. Kyle should have not said anything, since he really didn’t anyway.

Summary: “ad hominem” arguments are nothing more than personally attacking someone, instead of attacking their position in an argument. When someone commits this logical fallacy, it is a good sign they have no real argument to give.

What does “appeal to popularity” (in Latin: Ad Populum) mean?

“Appeal to popularity” is when you make an argument that something is true, false, a particular way, etc. because everyone – “the majority” – thinks the same way. That is not doing real research. Instead that is letting other people do your thinking for you.

Many times, the majority is not correct. How do you know people did not give out misinformation (e.g., fake news, exaggerated scientific findings, etc.), and everyone else jumped on the “band wagon”, automatically believing what they read and repeating the same to others?

Sometimes this means you try it out yourself to verify. Other times it means going to someone you trust (e.g., going to a friend who has 30+ years working on vehicles, to verify information you read about vehicle maintenance), or you may end up using your gut feeling (common sense) to make the decision you think is best.

I have followed the majority before, and later (sometimes years later), found the majority was incorrect in what they believed. If I had done my research, I would have saved myself trouble and worry.

This applies to online comments. Up-votes and down-votes for comments are just people’s opinions on a matter. A comment with a ton of up-votes does not automatically make it correct, nor does a comment with a ton of down-votes automatically make it incorrect. I want to know if the information is factually accurate, regardless of what other people think about a particular comment.

Here is a good example of why everyone saying that same thing does not mean something is true: Cornell University – The Internet and the Spread of False Information

Summary: Facts are not made by consensus. Just because everyone agrees, does not mean it is true. You must always use common sense and verify information you receive.

I have noticed many people on the Internet use logical fallacies in place of sound arguments.

Logical fallacies are arguments that sound good at first, but when thought through, do not really make sense. Some logical fallacies are not really arguments at all, but instead attack the person giving the information, instead of attacking the information itself (e.g., “ad hominem” arguments).

I have decided to start writing small explanations about various logical fallacies. This will help me – and others – to watch out and not make the mistake of using logical fallacies when we write or talk to others.

What exactly is a straw man argument?

Let’s first get a definition of a straw man argument.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “straw man” argument as: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

This logical fallacy is when someone incorrectly states their opponent’s position. This is when someone “puts words in your mouth”. Then the person “defeats” the straw-man argument.

The problem? The person never did “defeat” his opponent to begin with, since the opponent’s position was not the same position as advertised.

For example, Sally says that she does not like working when she is tired. Then Betty tells someone else that Sally said she does not like working, but then Betty continues and says that she thinks Sally is being lazy.

Betty misrepresented Sally’s position, and then “defeated” Sally’s position even though that was not her position to begin with. Sally never said she did not like working at all, only when she was tired.

Summary: Straw-man arguments are nothing more than misrepresenting what someone said to make your argument look valid.  Technically you could consider a straw-man argument a form of lying.