Thursdays with Seth #14: LOGIC PWN

So you might have at one point asked yourself, "Hey, self! What the hell is a logical fallacy?" Researchers have estimated that approximately every four seconds, somewhere, a UNIFI member is calling out a religious person for using a logical fallacy. So today's THURSDAYS WITH SETH post is designed to show YOU, our dedicated readers, how to spot logical fallacies. LET'S DO THIS.

WHAT THE FEK IS A LOGICAL FALLACY?
Essentially, a logical fallacy is when someone violates some rule of logic during an argument. Keep in mind that when I say "argument" I don't mean the kind you have with your loved ones at home involving plate-throwing and name-calling. I'm talking about arguments for us grown-ups, the kind in which we discuss the merits of ideas and try to get to the truth behind the discussion. Let's hit on some of the main ones!

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!
This is one of the most common logical fallacies you will run into when discussing evolution with a religious person. A straw man argument is when someone takes your actual argument and replaces it with a different argument that is similar but is easier to attack (a straw man). Then, they attack that argument instead. Here's an example:

Person 1: Evolution involves millions of generations of mutations and natural selection, which results in the formation of new species!
Person 2: You cannot breed a duck with a crocodile. Your argument is false.

Notice that person 1 never made such a claim, yet person 2 pretends that he did. Therefore, person 2 has created a straw man argument.

AD HOMINEM ATTACK!
Ad Hominem is latin, and it means something like "at the person." I'm not totally sure about that, and I don't feel like tabbing to wikipedia right now, so just pretend that I'm right and SHUT UP. This logical fallacy entails ignoring the actual validity of the person's claim and instead attacking the person himself. For instance:

Person 1: We can't incorporate religion into our laws because there are too many religions with conflicting ideas that we would have to attempt to reconcile.
Person 2: You're only saying that because you hate Jesus.

Person 2 completely ignores the reasoning behind Person 1's argument and instead tries to discredit the person's claim by making it seem as though his motives are questionable. Plus, Person 2 is probably a dick, which is why he is making ad hominem attacks.

AD POPULUM!
This means something like "at the populace." I made that translation up, too, but it's probably close. The idea here is that if everyone agrees on something, then it's true. Well, guess what? People are pretty dumb. So just because everyone agrees that something is true doesn't make it so. Without actual sound reasoning behind the agreement, the populace has no say in the argument.

SLIPPERY SLOPE!
In this logical fallacy, a person claims that one event will lead to an uncontrollable sequence of events, even when that sequence of events cannot occur within reason. For instance:

Person 1: We should treat homosexuals equally under the law and allow them to get married.
Person 2: Sure, first it's homosexuals, and then we'll be letting people marry their dogs.

Clearly Person 2 is a dumbass, but the key here is that in order to get married, a person must be able to sign a legal contract. A dog may be smarter than Person 2, but it doesn't have opposable thumbs and therefore cannot sign a contract. So it is not within reason that gay marriage would lead to bestiality marriages, because that's idiotic.

MISPLACED BURDEN OF PROOF!
If you aren't religious, you will have seen this a billion times. This is when someone places the burden of proof on the wrong side. It comes down to this: You can't prove a negative; you can only prove a positive. That is to say, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove that it does. If you have no proof that it exists, you can't claim that it doesn't; you can only say that you have no proof that it exists. Here is an example:

Person 1: I don't believe that God exists.
Person 2: You can't prove that he doesn't!

Person 2 is right, but a lack of proof for God's nonexistence is not proof of his existence. If it were, then we would also have to accept dragons, unicorns, and leprechauns as real as well. However, if I were to claim that God does not exist, suddenly I have a problem. The burden of proof is on me because I have made a claim about a truth of the universe. I can't support this claim, because there is no way to prove the nonexistence of something. So we can only say that we don't believe that he does exist. We can't say that he does not exist.

People on both sides of the religion argument will make this error constantly.

APPEAL TO TRADITION!
This is when someone uses the assumption that because something has been done a certain way, it is the better way to do it. Traditions often prove to be stupid or useless or based on stupid or useless ideas, so just because something has been done before does not mean that it should be done again.

Some traditions are worthwhile, true, but simply because something is a tradition does not constitute a sound reason for continuing to do it.

BEGGING THE QUESTION!
This one is a little trickier, but it is easier to spot if you think of it as "circular reasoning." An example would serve well here:

Argument: The Bible is the true word of God. I know this because it says so in the Bible. Because the Bible says that this is true, and because the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible is the true word of God.

It is normally not presented quite this bluntly, but you get the basic picture. When someone "begs the question," they use the conclusion as one of their reasons to support the conclusion. Sometimes it's implicit and not expressed outright, but that doesn't mean that it's not part of the argument. In other words, their reasoning goes in a circle.

Hopefully these descriptions have helped you! If you want to see a comprehensive list of logical fallacies (WITH EXAMPLES), check out this link!