7 – Symbolic logic and the main fallacies

So I’ll briefly explain some of the main fallacies, and then we can go deeper into each one with relevant examples as we progress. Many of the following are included for interest. We’ll go deeper into the main ones needed in day-to-day thinking.

1: Denying the Antecedent

So if you make a statement, if one of these is true, it means this. This is a conditional statement. There is the first thing you are saying (the antecedent) and then the second bit that depends on it (the consequent).

If Stella is running, she is moving. She is not running, therefore she is not moving.

Now you can write this down in posh ways and look clever. The first bit (running) will be represented by the letter A. The second bit (moving) can be represented as B. The logical operator is IF. In logic, each logical operator has a little symbol. The symbol for IF is a little arrow like this →. The statement is IF she is running, THEN she is moving. So you can write this down with just the symbols.

A → B If A, then B (A = running, B = moving)

So the symbol NOT is a minus sign. So to say the next bit (she is not running), you can write it like this:

-A (she is not running)

The symbol for a conclusion (therefore) is three little dots in the shape of a triangle like this ∴

So the conclusion is

∴-B (Therefore ∴ she is NOT running -B)

So:

A → B-A∴ ¬B

Scary stuff this symbolic logic! It’s not necessary to know the whole thing.

In symbolic form, the argument can be represented as:

A → B (If A, then B)

¬A (not A)

∴ ¬B (Therefore, not B)

Of course, it’s illogical; if she’s not running, she can still be moving in other ways, like swimming, jogging, or whatever.

2: The undistributed middle term (guilt by association (yes, previously covered, but we’ll keep looking because it’s so hard!)).

Some men have attacked women in the past.

James is a man.

Thus James attacked women.

3: Equivocation (words with more than one meaning)

Fans make noise.

She was using her fan.

She was making noise.

[But there is more than one type of fan; this was a hand-held one that you use the power of your wrist to cool yourself, and it is silent.] BE SPECIFIC

Always define terms.

4: Begging the question

The conclusion repeats the premise.

I am unlovable.

No one loves me.

No one will ever love me.

The first statement is the same as the conclusion, but the premise isn’t sound. WRONG IS WRONG

5: False assumptions

I have never had a long-term relationship.

If I have never had a long-term relationship, it means that no one is interested in me.

Therefore, no one will ever be interested in me.

The first premise assumes the lack of past relationships correlates with a lack of interest. DON’T ASSUME

6: straw man arguments

Discounting the argument by answering an easier argument.

Person A, ‘I think you should get out more and perhaps meet a partner’

Person B: ‘So you think I should just go out and jump into bed with the first person I see?’ [That isn’t what they said].

ANSWER THE QUESTION

7: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

My ex-partner cheated on me and treated me poorly.

I’ve seen people in relationships who cheat or lie to each other.

Conclusion: Therefore, it’s okay for me to be unfaithful in the future if I ever get into a relationship, because others do it too. AN EYE FOR A HEART

8: using and abusing tradition

Premise 1: In my family, it has always been expected that people marry by a certain age.

Premise 2: I am now past that age and still single.

Conclusion: Therefore, I must be a failure and will never find love because I haven’t followed this family tradition.

TRADITION IS OPTIONAL

9: The democratic fallacy, because many people believe it, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

Premise 1: Most people believe that love is easy to find if you just put yourself out there.

Premise 2: Everyone I know has found love, so it must be easy for everyone.

Conclusion: Therefore, if I can’t find love, there must be something wrong with me.

THEY CAN ALL BE WRONG

10: The ad hominem—responding to the person, not the argument

Person A: “I think you should try dating more people and be open to new experiences. You might find someone special.”

Person B: “What do you know about love? You’ve been single for years! Your advice is worthless.”

SEE *ME*

11: substituting force for reason

Premise 1: I keep getting rejected when I ask people out.

Premise 2: If I keep getting rejected, I’ll just have to make someone love me.

Conclusion: Therefore, I’ll just start insisting that someone go out with me until they agree.

STOP WHEN IT’S TIME

12: Uses and abuses of expertise

Premise 1: A well-known relationship coach claims that the key to finding love is to always be positive and confident.

Premise 2: Since this coach has a large following and is considered an expert, their advice must be correct.

Conclusion: Therefore, if I just act positive and confident, I will definitely find love.

THERE IS NO ONE ABOVE YOU

13: The quantifying of quality; seeing lightwaves is not seeing blue; you cannot quantify, say, love.

QUALITY CANNOT BE DEFINED

14: Consider more than the source.

Premise 1: I read an article that says the only way to find love is to be extroverted and socialize constantly.

Premise 2: My friend told me that online dating is the best option for meeting new people.

Conclusion: Therefore, I must become more extroverted and start online dating to find love.

HAVE MANY SOURCES

15: Stopping short at analysis

Premise 1: I’ve been single for a long time, and I often feel lonely.

Premise 2: I’ve noticed that I tend to avoid social situations because I feel anxious around new people.

Conclusion: Therefore, the reason I’m still single is that I’m just not cut out for dating. DON’T STOP BEFORE THE TRUTH

16 Reductionism

Premise 1: Love is just a chemical reaction in the brain caused by hormones like oxytocin and dopamine.

Premise 2: Since love is merely a chemical reaction, it doesn’t really mean anything deep or significant.

Conclusion: Therefore, I shouldn’t worry about finding love because it’s just a temporary feeling driven by chemicals.

IT’S MORE THAN ATOMS

17: misclassification

Premise 1: I’ve been on several dates, and none of them have turned into serious relationships.

Premise 2: All my friends who are in relationships are very outgoing and social.

Conclusion: Therefore, I must be an introvert, and introverts cannot find love.

BE OUT THE BOX

18: The red herring. diverts attention to the irrelevant

Premise 1: I’ve been single for a long time and feel lonely.

Premise 2: It’s hard to find love when there are so many people in the world who are superficial and only care about looks.

Conclusion: Therefore, I should just focus on my career and forget about finding love.

KNOW WHAT COUNTS

19. laughter as a diversionary tactic; pretending it’s not serious; dismissing arguments or laughing at individuals

Premise 1: I’ve been single for a long time and feel really lonely.

Premise 2: Instead of facing my feelings, I’ll just make jokes about how I’m destined to be the crazy cat person.

Conclusion: Therefore, I’ll just keep laughing about my situation instead of trying to change it.

LAUGH WHEN IT’S GOOD TO

20. Tears as diversion

DON’T CRY

21. The inability to disprove does not prove

Premise 1: I’ve never been able to prove that I will never find love.

Premise 2: Since I can’t prove that I will never find love, it must mean that I will eventually find love.

Conclusion: Therefore, I should just wait and have faith that love will come to me.

THERE’S NOT ALWAYS PROOF

22: False dilemma; many opinions but say there are only two

Premise 1: Either I find love by going out and meeting new people, or I will be alone forever.

Premise 2: I don’t feel comfortable going out and meeting new people.

Conclusion: Therefore, I will be alone forever.

ITS ALWAYS GRAY

23:—dosthoc ergo propter hoc—like caveman thinking birdsong causes the sun to rise.

Premise 1: I’ve been single for a long time.

Premise 2: I recently started a new job that keeps me very busy.

Conclusion: Therefore, my new job is the reason I’m still single.

BE SURE OF CAUSES

24: Special pleading: omitting significant information to help your point; present things in a certain light.

Premise 1: I have been single for years and have tried dating without success.

Premise 2: My friends tell me that I need to put myself out there more and be open to meeting new people.

Premise 3: However, my situation is different because I have anxiety and it’s hard for me to socialize.
Conclusion: Therefore, I shouldn’t have to follow the same advice as everyone else because my anxiety makes it impossible for me to date successfully.

I AM NOT SPECIAL

25: The fallacy of expediency: it doesn’t matter how you get there as long as you get there.

Premise 1: I’ve been single for a long time and feel lonely.

Premise 2: My friends suggest that I should try online dating to meet new people.

Premise 3: However, I don’t like the idea of online dating because it seems impersonal and risky.

THE JOURNEY IS THE GOAL

Scroll to top