Welcome aboard The Bus!
The Stop
Logical fallacies are arguments built on false reasoning. Initially, they might appear true - and can be persuasive. Consequently, they are often used in rhetoric to encourage people to think a certain way or believe certain things, and - as they usually appeal at least in part to emotions - can be very effective. However, fallacious arguments are built on flawed reasoning that is exposed when logic is applied. There are many types of logical fallacies, and philosophers as early as Aristotle recognised as essential the need to detect and avoid them - including the three we’re looking at briefly today.1
Appeal to Authority
This ‘pernicious’ fallacy occurs when it is claimed that someone's ‘credentials, fame or reputation alone’ prove they must be right. The fallacy works because people have an ‘innate cognitive bias’ that means they frequently perceive people in authority as having an expertise in all things - even in subjects in which they have no background. As with many logical fallacies, it works because it feels like it should: ‘if someone has credentials and expertise in a certain area, shouldn't their opinion on that area be more trustworthy?’ The reality is that, actually, it should - but it becomes a fallacy when an argument is accepted solely because of who the person is, rather than because of the argument's evidence or reasoning. An example could be me: I teach philosophy and English Literature. I know a good deal about both of these subjects and my students trust my knowledge and opinion. However, if I state an opinion about climate change or American politics, my ‘authority’ as a teacher is irrelevant as to whether my opinion is correct. My opinions on these matters may be completely correct, but to accept them purely because of any perceived authority I have as a teacher would be completely fallacious.
Appeal to Ignorance
This remarkably common fallacy - it frequently ‘underlines arguments for conspiracy theorists’ - occurs when a person argues that their conclusion must be true because there is no evidence against it. The claimant shifts the burden of proof away from themselves, wrong-footing the person on the receiving end and often appearing to make sense. The reality, however, is the opposite: the lack of evidence against something does not in fact prove that that something is true. For example, the BBC estimates that there are over 10 million people who believe that lizards (that’s right - lizards) actually control the workings of the world. When challenged about the lack of evidence for this claim, a person who (inexplicably) believes the lizard-ruler nonsense would use this fallacy by replying that of course there’s no evidence - the lizards are too clever to leave any. An answer which proves absolutely nothing.
Divine Intervention
This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that a certain phenomenon or event occurs as the result of divine intervention or a supernatural force or cause. Also known as the Argument from Incredulity, the divine intervention fallacy occurs when a person asserts that a given proposition must be false because it either runs contradictory to their personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. For example, the survivor of an assassination attempt might claim the only explanation for the bullet merely grazing his ear was because of God’s intervention. This is obviously fallacious for numerous reasons, not least because it ignores many reasonable explanations for the miss: bad aim, weapons malfunction, unexpected movement of the target’s head, a gust of wind, etc.2 However, by claiming that they cannot believe any of these factors could be the explanation and combining their argument with the two previous fallacies, the claimant’s ‘evidence’ becomes more difficult for logic to refute. Nevertheless, such arguments are not logically valid, once again proving that just because something is believed does not mean it’s true.
The Detour
Today’s Detour is to Brighton Video’s Red Barrows, a very short (2:00) film paying odd parodic homage to the RAF’s Red Arrows. However, rather than supersonic fighter jets interacting acrobatically thousands of feet above the ground, these four guys do a grounded version … with wheelbarrows. Gentle, fun - and very British.
The Recommendation
Today’s Recommendation is Alex Garland’s The Beach (1996). The novel is the story of Richard - a young British backpacker ‘searching for a legendary, idyllic and isolated beach untouched by tourism, and his time there in its small, international community of backpackers’. Well received upon its release and the source of a popular film version starring Leonardo DiCaprio,3 the novel was described by the Washington Post as a ‘furiously intelligent first novel … that moves with the kind of speed and grace many older writers can only day-dream about,’ and by novelist Nick Hornby as ‘a Lord of the Flies for Generation X’ - both apt descriptions. It’s also really fun. Highly recommended.
From the back cover: Bangkok - first stop on the backpacker trail. On Richard’s first night in a hostel a mysterious traveller slits his own wrists, leaving Richard a map to ‘the Beach.’
The Beach is a legend among young travellers in Thailand: a secret island Paradise where a select community lives in blissful isolation. Richard sets out in search of adventure, but finds that the Beach is not what it seems. Paradise comes at a price.
The Sounds
Today’s Sounds is a collection of five great tracks that have recently found themselves on my playlist: ‘A Certain Romance’ (Arctic Monkeys, 2006), ‘D.O.A’ (Van Halen, 1976), ‘Know Your Enemy’ (Rage Against the Machine, 1991), ‘Scenario’ (A Tribe Called Quest, 1991) and ‘Lawyers, Guns and Money’ (Warren Zevon, 1978). Enjoy!
The Thought
Today’s Thought is from the 19th century English biologist, educator, and advocate of agnosticism, Thomas Henry Huxley:4
‘Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.’
If you have a thought on this Thought - or any part of today’s issue - please leave a comment below:
And that’s the end of this Stop - I hope you enjoyed the diversion!
Thanks to all Bus Riders! Whether you ride in the front, middle, back or the cool-kid seats, your interest and support is truly appreciated. If you like The Bus, please SHARE it with a friend or two.
If you haven’t climbed aboard The Bus, please do!
Until the next Stop …
This is part five of the Logical Fallacies miniseries of Stops. You can check out the others here: (I) Slippery Slope, (II) Ad hominem, (III) Cause-correlation and (IV) Straw Man/Red Herrings. Sources for today’s Stop include Seven Fallacies (BBC), Fallacies (Texas State), eponymous Wikipedia entries and notes from my classes.
Of course, explanations of this sort aren’t offered to individuals known for their ability to reason logically. In this particular incident the claimant who attributed his survival to divine intervention didn’t believe it for one moment, but instead threw this morsel out to feed the … incredulous among his followers.
Definitely read the book; the film is so different as to be almost unrecognisable.
Huxley coined the term ‘agnosticism’. He’s also the grandfather of the author Aldous Huxley, and subject of The Bus 2.2 (6 October 2022) For more about Huxley, see: Thomas Huxley (Britannica).
Love the video and playlist
This is wild, I am teaching Logical Fallacies in my class today!