What are logical fallacies and how to detect them in a discussion

When there is a discussion on a point, it is expected that the parties involved will raise arguments to defend their respective positions .

However, in many situations logical errors may appear .

Roughly, These are errors in reasoning that, when raised, may seem valid, but are not valid in terms of argument. .

They are usual find in everyday conversations, political debates and in the comments sections of social media.

Someone is using a This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong or right. but it does allow for logical errors if used unintentionally.

On the other hand, on many occasions they are deliberately used, because can be very persuasive and convincing .

That is why Learning to identify errors can help strengthen critical thinking and take a broader look at a problem. discussion or a debate .

Following you will find some of the most common .

It is also called “against the man”. This refers to refuting a person’s claim based on aspects of their identity, motivations, relationships, or personality traits, instead of focusing on the argument they are making in itself.

For example, someone might suggest that their counterpart “is not intelligent enough” to discuss a topic or that their personal beliefs “make critical analysis impossible” of a situation.

In such cases, instead of presenting arguments that strengthen a position, one “cancels” the other .

Another more obvious example would be saying that another individual “does not have the capacity to lead a project” because of the way he dresses .

As the subtitle suggests, here A statement is claimed to be true because there is no evidence to the contrary. .

An example, saved by the BBC serious claim that outside beings from another planet rule Earth, but are “too intelligent” to leave evidence part of your domain.

“How can you be sure it’s not true?” is a sentence that sums up the meaning of this error.

Consists of distort the other side’s argument to make it simpler and easier to refute .

This can happen in a discussion in which Person claims highly processed foods can cause health problems .

In view of this statement, his counterpart could resort to “scarecrow” by saying: “Are you suggesting that junk food be banned because it is the cause of all disease? That is false” .

In this situation, the second individual distorts what the first said . Or, in other words, you turn your statement into a “straw man” to make it easier to withdraw.

It is about maintaining that A statement is true in itself because a person with certain credentials, fame, or reputation in a field said it. .

It focuses on who is this person and not in the arguments in question.

An example would be to say that because a doctor from a prestigious university has assured that a situation is a certain way, it is correct and irrefutable .

In this case, his authority as a specialist physician is invoked instead of presenting arguments which strengthen your position.

Suggest that an action or measure will inevitably lead to other events .

In this way, he seeks to create a certain degree of fear in the face of this “slippery slope.” instead of focusing on discussing the central topic .

A hypothetical and more everyday example could be seen in the event that someone suggests: “We should not give our teenage son permission to go to parties because he would want to go to all of them and neglect his studies.” .

Again, in this case, instead of presenting arguments that reinforce a position of the logical field, it is inferred that a series of events will occur from a specific event .

Refers to the presentation two options – usually opposite – as if they were the only possible ones . This, instead of evaluating or thinking further.

A general example, but frequently used in politics and which reflects what this logical error consists of, would be: “Do you support this movement that seeks to build a better world or do you prefer to stand by and let them threaten our well-being? .

There, It is suggested that in order to contribute to “a better world” one must support their movement and that not doing so would be to “enable” the consequences. negative for everyone.

However, this is left out because there may be other options beyond these two.