Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies in Everyday Arguments

Introduction: Emotion, Decision-Making, and Critical Thinking

Author and speaker Brian Tracy argues that people do not make decisions rationally or logically. He believes that individuals make decisions emotionally and only then seek to justify those decisions on a rational basis. For example, purchasing a vehicle is less often a rational decision about what is needed and more often influenced by what the person wants to gain from owning that vehicle, and how he or she wants to be perceived. The same can be said of purchasing clothing, filling a closet with shoes when a few pairs would suffice, or justifying a third scoop of ice cream as a late-night snack. When discussing critical thinking and logical fallacies, therefore, we are attempting to move individuals out of the normal thought process and into an environment that is largely foreign to traditional decision-making.

Critical thinking and logical argument are as crucial to a democratic nation today as they were to the Founding Fathers in the 1700s. As Smith (1995) observed, "Psychology is about critical thinking; life is about critical thinking." An analysis of the construction of arguments can be found in any university logic course. While educators have paid considerable attention to critical thinking skills, comparatively little attention has been given to logical and fallacious arguments — an essential component of critical thinking (Duplass & Zeidler, 2002).

Any group of people brings with them opinions and information gleaned from popular culture. Content for discussions about current issues is readily accessible through newspapers, weekly magazines, television documentaries, and newscasts. Whether a person feels like an expert or feels overwhelmed by the volume of available information on a topic, learning to separate the logical from the fallacious is a key skill — one that gives a person control over his or her own thinking by teaching individuals to evaluate information through discussion with others who are also seeking accurate information and reliable sources.

The Role of Logical Fallacies in Argument

For these reasons, the subject of logical fallacies tends to stretch our imagination — or go entirely unnoticed. Logical fallacies are typically rooted in the emotional construction of an argument. They are based in emotional reasoning rather than critical, logical, or rational thought. In other words, when we make decisions emotionally, we most often set aside logical thinking. While emotions serve as the motivating force behind our choices, we then seek to move toward a logical basis so that our decisions can rest on something beyond how they make us feel.

Often, logical fallacies appear in an argument when a person wants to shift attention from one issue to another. If a topic is becoming too personal or too painful, the person who wishes to avoid the conflict will frequently draw from an emotional reservoir and introduce charged language into the conversation, hoping that the resulting explosion will allow him or her to escape scrutiny — much like a magician disappearing in a puff of smoke.

This tendency is particularly evident when interacting with adolescents. At an age when teenagers are moving away from the rational instruction of their parents and developing priorities that make them feel like individuals, learning to distinguish between rational discussion and logical fallacies becomes an important aspect of maturation (Fauth et al., 1998). Avoidance is one of the most common ways people handle confrontation or the threat of change. Understanding logical fallacies is therefore essential for those who want to move beyond the limitations of purely emotional living and take greater control over their own thought processes.

The 'Look Who's Talking' Fallacy in Political Discourse

The "look who's talking" fallacy is a common appeal to emotional relativism. The person who invokes it seeks to downplay their own actions in light of the speaker's actions or beliefs. This fallacy often lies at the core of political advertising. In a thirty-second television spot, the ad sponsor rarely has time to develop a well-reasoned argument and present a substantive counter-position. Instead, the approach is to diminish an opponent's credibility by associating him or her with disliked or socially objectionable decisions.

A clear example can be found in campaign advertisements that highlight an opponent's voting record on taxes. Such an ad recounts a series of unfavorable tax decisions made by the opponent over the past decade. The result is that the opponent's current economic promises are undermined by his or her previous statements and actions. The "look who's talking" fallacy takes information from a person's own history and uses it to discredit his or her current positions — a rhetorical move that substitutes personal attack for genuine policy debate. This is closely related to what logicians call the ad hominem fallacy, in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or circumstances of the person making it rather than addressing the argument itself.

Conclusion: Rational Foundations for a Just Society

Understanding human behavior is essential to communicating effectively and achieving harmony in human society. If we are going to build a rational and just social order, we must be able to move beyond the emotions of the moment and find a foundation that does not shift depending on whose perspective is applied. Logical and rational truth must serve as the basis for our decisions. With that foundation in place, we become free to enjoy our emotions rather than be enslaved by them.