Knowledge (a Foundation)
There is an old saying that states “Knowledge is power”. This saying basically means that individuals who have a lot of knowledge (facts, information, and skills) have a lot more power than individuals who do not have as much knowledge. However, the facts, information, and skills that we have must be true for them to be knowledge and to be useful in giving us real power.
Knowledge gives us the power to figure out how we want to live our lives, and to guide us in making informed decisions about our health, education, work, finances, passions, future, and much more. With the acquisition of more knowledge, we can make better decisions, and we have a much better chance of creating and having a happier and more prosperous life. Therefore, if we want to have the power to control and to make our lives better, it would be logical for us to make the acquisition of knowledge a high priority.
When we are deprived of knowledge or our knowledge is corrupted or is taken away from us, some of our power is also taken way. We can allow this to happen when we put our trust in the wrong individuals or groups, allow others to feed us lies, disinformation or misinformation, allow others to manipulate us, or fall for logical fallacies. To guard against having our power taken away from us, we need to understand how unscrupulous individuals and groups are depriving us of knowledge by trying to keep it from us, by trying to take it away from us and by feeding us lies, disinformation or misinformation.
Another old saying is “Ignorance is bliss”. This saying basically means that if we do not know about something bad, then we would not be worrying about it, and we would therefore be happier. If something is beyond our control, then we could live our lives without it weighing on our minds.
For instance, if an asteroid is about to wipe out all life on earth, then at least most of us could live our final days without worrying about it. However, hopefully someone with the power to do something is not ignorant of the situation and is working on stopping it.
On the other hand, if we could control something, then knowing about it would allow us to do something about it before it potentially ruined our lives. For instance, if we had a form of treatable cancer, then knowing about it could spur us to get the needed medical treatment.
An interesting finding about knowledge is that the less we know about something, the more we think we know about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is one of our cognitive biases that I talked about in the section on Psychology and Sociology. If we think we know more about something than we do know, then we might think we have more power than we have but in fact others will have more power over us. Therefore, it is always a good idea to learn enough about things that are important so that we will at least know how much we do not know.
The following subsections describe some of the ways that individuals and groups may try to take away our power and to manipulate us. They also contain some information to help us in countering this manipulation.
In our modern world, the biggest threat to our democracy, freedom, finances, and lives comes from all the lies, disinformation and misinformation that are being spread. In the past, it took a long time for lies, disinformation and misinformation to be spread, which gave us some time to counter them before they spread too far. Today, social media can spread lies, disinformation and misinformation around the world in seconds.
It is knowing the truth that gives us power. When we believe lies, we give away our power to those who lie to us. Today, it seems like there are many more individuals and groups spreading lies, disinformation and misinformation than ever before. Their ultimate goals may be different, but they are using lies, disinformation and misinformation to try to manipulate us into doing something that would help them but would likely harm us or others.
If we knew the truth, then we might not do what these manipulators are trying to trick us into doing. To save ourselves from unduly harming ourselves and others, we must see through their lies, disinformation and misinformation so that we can try to learn the truth. There is a well-known quote from the Bible that states that “the truth will set you free”. We can take this to mean that true freedom comes from knowing and understanding the truth. In addition, knowing the truth will allow us to keep or to take back our power.
Given the vast amount of information that bombards us every day, it is hard for most of us to analyze it all and to determine what is true and what is false. That is, there is so much information that we end up with cognitive overload. This is where our cognitive biases come into play. They help us with what to pay attention to, but our cognitive biases can lead us astray. This can leave us believing lies, disinformation and misinformation, which will leave us vulnerable to individuals and groups who know how to manipulate us.
The best way to handle this is to stay aware of the fact that there is a lot of false information out there so that we can purposefully look for sources of reliably true information. When I talk about sources being reliable, I mean sources that verify that something they are reporting is the truth, that they are not trying to manipulate us, and that they are not just telling us what they think we want to hear or what they want us to believe.
However, even the most reliable source may still inadvertently repeat false information. Therefore, if we want to retain our power, we must stay vigilant and question everything that may be important or useful. That means not only questioning and analyzing anything that seems a bit out there or that just does not sound right, but even things that seem to fit our worldview, since our worldview may have been tainted by previous lies, disinformation and misinformation that we had let in.
It is important to note that staying vigilant. and questioning and analyzing the information that we are being fed takes some effort. Given this, we may need to prioritize questioning and analyzing the information that is most important for protecting ourselves and those around us. However, if we want to keep or to gain power, then we need truthful information, so making this extra effort may be worth it.
There are many different sources of information. Among these may be friends and family, news outlets, and social media. Some of these sources are better than the others, but we cannot trust that we will always get complete, truthful or relevant information from any of them.
Our friends and family may want to be helpful by passing on important information, but unless we know that they are getting their information from reliable sources, we may need to verify what they are telling us. I once had a friend who liked to pass on a lot of information, but with a little checking, I found that most of it was wrong.
News outlets should be the most reliable sources of information. However, our news outlets are controlled by individuals and groups who may use their control to distort the truth or even to lie to promote their agenda. This is especially true in some countries where authoritarian governments control the news and feed their citizens mostly propaganda.
In the United States and in many other democratic countries, some news outlets today are also little more than propaganda machines for someone's extreme agenda. Therefore, we need to know the news outlet's agenda and if it is not to present honest and reliable news, then we need to find a different news outlet that is more reliable.
Social media is too much of a free for all with little control over who says what to be very reliable. Not only are there many fake accounts and bots, which allow anonymous individuals and groups to spread whatever lies, disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, etc. that they want, but even individuals and groups with legitimate accounts will often do the same. Therefore, we need to be extremely careful with which social media accounts we follow.
There are many things that social media companies could do to filter out lies, disinformation, misinformation and other hateful or threatening content. Of course, each one of us should still be free to decide what we want to allow through or to filter out. Therefore, social media companies should be required to rate content and to set up various filters based on those ratings but then give each of us the ability to decide which filters we want to use, and in general, what content we want to see. Of course, social media companies need to be reliable, or they will not rate content or set up their filters honestly so that they can promote the lies, disinformation and misinformation themselves.
We should be given a wide range of appropriate options so that we can fine tune what we want to receive and what we want to be blocked. For instance, we might always want some types of content blocked, but maybe we want to be notified when the blocked content came from certain individuals, groups, or sources. On the other hand, we may always want to get content from certain individuals, groups, or sources no matter what it contains.
However, even if we wanted to see everything, the content we receive should still always show how the media companies rated that content, which would allow us to decide whether we agreed with that rating or not, and to provide any appropriate feedback. To help standardize how content is rated and filtered, and to ensure that all media companies provide all possible filtering options, the federal government should set some appropriate rules. I will talk more about this later.
There are many individuals and groups that are trying to manipulate us by feeding us lies, disinformation and misinformation, and by using other means. Their goal is to control us in some clever or unscrupulous way. They may do that by trying to brainwash us into believing something that is false or by trying to coerce us in some way.
Some manipulators may be fully aware of what they are doing and may carefully craft what they are doing to control their target audience. Other manipulators may not realize what they are doing and may simply believe that they are only trying to persuade others to their point of view or to do what they want them to do. Either way, when they succeed, we are left believing in falsehoods or doing bad things that can cause us and others undue harm.
On the one hand, we may be manipulated by advertisers into buying products that we do not need or want. In this case we may just be out a few dollars. On the other hand, we may be brainwashed by extremists into believing in their cause and maybe into becoming a suicide bomber. In this case, we may lose our lives and end up murdering and maiming many innocent people.
There are many tricks that con artists, scammers, authoritarian leaders, and others may use to try to get us to believe what they are saying, or to get us to do what they want. However, for these tricks to work they need to find or to create people who are less knowledgeable about some things. That is, they want people who lack the experience, judgment or information needed to counter their manipulation and brainwashing tricks.
Although these manipulators and brainwashers may prefer finding and using their tricks on people who are already lacking some knowledge, they will also use some of their tricks to try to take away our knowledge to make us naive enough to be manipulated and brainwashed. Of course, once we become less knowledgeable, we become more vulnerable to other manipulators and brainwashers as well.
The following is a famous saying that could be applied to the idea of people being manipulated and brainwashed.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
The first case says that some people are naïve enough to be manipulated or brainwashed at any time. The second case says that we all are susceptible to being manipulated or brainwashed sometimes. The third case says that there will always be some people who will see through a given attempt at manipulation or brainwashing, although not always the same people each time.
The idea is that we want to decrease the occurrences of the first two cases and increase the number of people in the third case. The way to do that is to increase the number of us who are knowledgeable enough to spot when someone is trying to manipulate or brainwash us. If enough of us can spot manipulation and brainwashing, then those manipulators will become rare. That is, we will have created an example of what could be called herd immunity.
For us to guard against being manipulated and brainwashed, we must not only become and stay knowledgeable about our world and our issues, but we must also learn to recognize the tricks that manipulators and brainwashers will try to use. The following are just a few of the ways that they may try to manipulate and brainwash us.
We tend to believe the first thing we learn about something. If that first thing was false, it can then be harder for us to believe the truth when we finally learn it. The reason for this is that we need to create new neural circuits that will represent the memory and connect it with other relevant memories. Then, when we learn more about that something, additional neural circuits are added and connected to the original memory which will strengthen the memory of that false information and the connections to it.
For example, we rarely hear that a person is not guilty of something, before we hear someone say that a person is guilty of something. Therefore, it is easy for someone to smear a person by accusing that person of a crime that that person did not commit. In this case, we need to remember that someone is innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent.
To fight against being manipulated with the first thing we hear, we need to try to keep an open mind until we get all the facts. We will either immediately need to learn the truth so that we can create new neural circuits with the true information instead of the false information, or we will need to do the harder job of weakening neural circuits with false information and the connections to them.
We also tend to believe the things that we hear repeated “over and over and over again”. In life, we are inclined to believe that if we get a certain result repeated “over and over and over again”, then that result is a fact. This is a result of our predictive bias where we see a pattern in what is being repeated.
In other words, each of these repeated lies strengthens the neural circuits with the memory of that false information and adds more connections to them. If the memory of this false information is strengthened and there are more connections to it, then what we will remember best are those lies instead of the truth.
Therefore, individuals and groups trying to manipulate us will repeat a lie “over and over and over again”, even if what they are repeating has been proven false or has been debunked. For instance, some individuals and groups keep saying “over and over and over again” that the 2020 election was stolen, even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked.
To counter a repeated lie, each time we hear that lie we need to remind ourselves that it is a lie. Then we should answer back “over and over and over again” with the truth. If we can drown out the memories of the false information with memories of the truthful information, then we will remember the truth.
A variation of trying to manipulate us via repeating a lie “over and over and over again” is hogging the conversation. By not allowing us or others to contribute to the conversation, we may only hear the lie. Individuals might hog the conversation by simply continuing to talk without letting others get a word in. Individuals or groups might also buy up lots of advertising time so that their message gets a lot more airtime than anyone else.
For instance, I have seen this used many times by someone being interviewed by a reporter. The interviewee may state some supposed “fact” that the reporter will then try to correct, but the interviewee keeps talking and does not let the reporter counter with the truth. It is an additional frustration when the reporter does not provide the truth after the interview. My guess is that the reporter does not want to upset the interviewee who might then not agree to further interviews. However, I would prefer that the reporters never invited back those who lied.
This is also a big issue in politics. Some candidates for office may get a lot of donations that can be used to buy a lot of advertising time, or some PAC buys up a lot of advertising time in support of a candidate. When one candidate can get a lot more advertising time than the opposing candidate, then we will mainly only get to hear from the candidate who is hogging the conversation and not get a true comparison of the candidates.
When we are only hearing one side of any issue or argument, we should wonder why, and then we must make it a point to find a way to hear all the other sides. When we have finally heard all sides of an issue or argument, we can try to reconcile the differences and try to filter out what is false so that we can get to what is true.
On any given day, we could be faced with a situation where we need to react with urgency and without the time to think about what to do. For example, if we took the time to think about what to do when a car is careening towards us, then we might die. In urgent situations where we do not have the time to think about different options, we need to rely on our built-in instincts, or better yet, on any training that we may have had in knowing how to handle these urgent situations.
Con artists, scammers and others will try to impart a sense of urgency to activate our Expediency Bias and to get us to act quickly without thinking. They have studied how most of us would normally react in different urgent situations and will try to create situations where most of us would likely react the way they want.
For instance, some individuals may say that we need to buy now or lose out on some great deal. They know that due to our Safety Bias a lot of us will be afraid to lose out on the great deal that they are trying to convince us that they are offering us. Therefore, they may be able to get us to buy something that we do not really need or want, or at a price that is not the great deal that we were led to believe it was.
Unless we are in a real life or death situation, we should have time to think, and we should not let someone force us into a premature decision. We should take whatever time we need to make an informed decision and not be forced into acting too quickly out of some fabricated sense of urgency.
If we want to be prepared for certain urgent situations, we can train ourselves to react how we want to instead of how we would have reacted based on our normal instincts. For instance, if we do not want to be manipulated into buying something that we may not need or want, then we can train ourselves to respond in these situations by always asking for the time to think about it or to say no thanks.
Some unscrupulous individuals and groups will also use threats, intimidation and coercion to try to manipulate us into doing something that the manipulator wants us to do, but that we may not want to do and cannot be easily tricked into doing. For instance, if someone threatens us with jail time unless we do what they say, then they are most likely trying to scam us.
One example of this is a call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, who threatens us with jail time unless we pay up now. Legitimate organizations, like the IRS, would never do that, so we need to report those threats or at least ignore them.
Nowadays, threats, intimidation and coercion are becoming more common in politics. Individuals and groups are now yelling and screaming at our representatives and election officials. They may imply a threat by telling them things like they know where they live or directly threatening them with death in text or phone messages. These individuals and groups may claim their free speech rights, but those rights end when they resort to threats, intimidation and coercion.
Some threats may be subtle or may rely more on eliciting a feeling of guilt rather than fear. A classic example is when friends ask us to do something that we do not want to do because it may go against our values. If we decline their request, they may counter with something like “a true friend would do this for me”. The idea is to make us feel guilty that we are not a true friend or to make us fear losing a friend. A simple counter to this would be to respond with something like “a true friend would not ask me to do that”.
When individuals or groups threaten us or try to intimidate or coerce us, we need to report them to the police or FBI, so that they can be held accountable. If we, with the help of others, shine a light on those who threaten or try to intimidate or to coerce us, then we can reduce their ability to manipulate us.
One big danger that we face is that some individuals and groups have been able to acquire so much power that it becomes hard to hold them accountable. For instance, this includes some of our elected officials and judges. When these people have the power to throw us in jail or ruin or threaten our very life if we stand up to them, then we are in real danger. In these cases, we must all stand together to hold them accountable so that we can protect our freedom.
In addition to trying to create a sense of urgency or to create fear through threats, intimidation and coercion, the individuals and groups trying to manipulate us may also try to stir up other emotions like outrage and anger. These manipulators know that when we let our emotions take over, our ability to reason goes out the window and we can be more easily manipulated.
To combat this type of manipulation, we need to keep or to get our emotions under control, so that we can think logically about the situation and make good, informed decisions. When we take control of our emotions, we would not be suppressing them; instead, we would acknowledge them but would not let them take control of us.
In addition to trying to manipulate us by provoking negative emotions, a manipulator may try to provoke positive emotions. One way to do that is with flattery. Although compliments are often genuine, they may not be when individuals are using them while trying to get us to do something. That is, they may be trying to “butter us up” or “kissing up to us” so that we will feel generous enough to give them what they want.
In addition to trying to create a sense of urgency, or to create fear through threats and intimidation, the people trying to manipulate us may also try to stir up other emotions like outrage and anger. When we let our emotions take over, reason goes out the window and we can more easily be manipulated. To combat this, we need to get our emotions under control, so that we can think logically about the situation and make good decisions.
A particularly insidious form of manipulation is Gaslighting which is used to gradually make us question our own judgement, feelings, memories and reality itself. Because of the gradual nature of gaslighting, it is done by those whom we are in a real or perceived relationship with, and it may be hard for us to realize what is happening at the time.
Individuals who use this manipulation tactic are emotionally abusing us. These abusers may not be trying to get us to do something at the time but are trying to gain and to maintain power and control over us to get us to do whatever they want us to do later or to allow them to avoid taking responsibility for their bad behavior. The following are some of the tactics that a gaslighting abuser will use.
One gaslighting tactic is to deny that something ever happened. For instance, they will deny something bad that they did had happened. The idea is to make us question our memory and to sow seeds of doubt in us, which can make us question our sanity. To reinforce this, an abuser will also try to get us to doubt our memory in many other situations. These abusers can then get us to rely more on them and on the reality that they have created.
Another tactic is to accuse us of being too sensitive when we become hurt or disappointed by their criticism of us or our friends. The abuser may even say something like “I am sorry you think I hurt you”. Although this sounds like an apology, it instead is a way to reinforce the belief that we are being too sensitive or irrational. The idea is to get us to doubt our perceptions and to get us to stop standing up for ourselves and our friends.
When we start to question our own sanity and perceptions, the abusers will then use this to their advantage. They may tell us that they think we are crazy and that others also think that. The abusers may then try to convince our friends that we are crazy. If successful, our friends will not believe our stories, which will isolate us and allow the abusers to gain more power and control over us.
Getting out of this type of abusive relationship can be difficult, especially if we are trapped in it for a long time. The key is to become more aware of who we are and to pay more attention to our gut feelings. If things do not seem or feel right, then it is time to act.
We need to hold on to any record of an abuser’s behavior, like texts, emails and voice mails. We can then take these records and our story to a trusted friend or a therapist, who can help us more accurately evaluate our situation and help us extract ourselves from it. We should also reach out to a mental health professional who specializes in these types of emotional abuse for additional support and help with moving forward.
Of course, the best thing is not to get trapped in an abusive relationship in the first place. To do that, we need to pay attention to our relationships and if someone tries to use these or other manipulative tactics, we need to stand up for ourselves and not let them get away with it. In fact, since the people who emotionally abuse others rarely change, it is best to get away from these people completely as soon as possible.
In some cases, the individuals and groups trying to manipulate us may not be able to come up with a believable lie. In these cases, they may try to flood us with many different lies. They are hoping we will experience cognitive overload and not be able to logically evaluate all the lies. Maybe one of the lies does stick, even if different individuals end up believing a different lie. However, even when we do not believe any of these lies, they may have thrown so many different lies at us that we may not know what to believe, and therefore not even believe the truth.
To counter a flood of lies, we need to take the time to filter out all the lies so that we can get to the truth. The best thing is to check with some reliable source who would be able to get to the truth. Once we have learned the truth, we must then counter each lie with that truth.
One additional thing that works in a manipulator's favor is the fact that we are reluctant to admit when we were wrong about something for fear of looking bad. Therefore, once we have been manipulated into believing in a lie, many of us may not like to admit that we were wrong, even when presented with otherwise convincing evidence of the truth.
However, continuing to believe in a lie is what really makes us look bad. I have learned that it is always better to switch to believing the truth, even if I need to admit that I had been wrong before. I even admitted in an earlier section that I have been wrong before. When we admit when we were wrong, it is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength that can help others be strong as well.
Many individuals and groups, including our friends, business acquaintances, representatives, and others, will often tell us to trust them. They may say that they know what is right or what is best for us. However, that is not always the case. They could simply be wrong, or they may instead be trying to manipulate us. Therefore, we need to stay well informed, to question things and to do our own due diligence to learn the truth.
I learned early on to question things when someone tells me to trust them, and this has helped me many times. To illustrate, I would like to relate a couple of the many instances of this from my programming career. This will demonstrate the benefit of questioning things and let me show off some of my problem-solving abilities.
I was looking into an issue where some data was not being processed correctly. When I looked at the program that processed that data, there was an especially complex bit of code, that included a comment that said that the code had been thoroughly tested, had been shown to be correct, and should not be changed. My fellow programmer also said the code was correct. However, I could not find any other reason for the data to be processed incorrectly, so I dug into that code and ended up finding a critical flaw in the logic. After fixing the code, the data was then processed correctly.
On another occasion, an overnight batch processing job had failed. Our manager assigned our other 4 team members to investigate the failure and asked me to continue with another critical task. Near the end of the day, I had finished my task, but my teammates still had not been able to find a solution to the data processing failure. I jumped in to help. After about 10 minutes, I had seen a possible cause in the code. If the data had contained a "5" in a specific place in the data record, then that would have caused the failure. Everyone said that it was impossible for the data to have a "5" in that position. However, I persisted until the business manager looked at the data and found that I was correct. The data was corrected, and the batch processing job was successfully rerun.
Whenever individuals or groups say that we should thrust them or that there is no need to question something, then our first thought should be to question it. They may not want us to look too closely at what they are saying, because they know it will not stand up to scrutiny, or that we could uncover something that they have done wrong. They may even try to make us feel guilty about not trusting them, but if it is something important, then we must persist.
Individuals and groups may also try to distract us from questioning what they have said or done by trying to get us to look at something else. This is a Red Herring, which I will talk more about in the next subsection on logical fallacies. When an Individual or group tells us to trust them or tries to distract us from one issue by bringing up something else, then that may be when we should look even closer at the original issue.
When we are trying to solve a problem, we often need to use logic. When we use logic, we must use a valid argument form that consists of some number of premises and a conclusion. The premises are statements that are offered as reasons or evidence to support the conclusion of the argument. Premises can often be identified from indicators like “if”, “given that”, “because” or “since”. For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises based on the argument’s logical form.
We can illustrate with a simple argument that has a major premise in the form “All A are B” and a minor premise in the form “C is A”. In this case, we could form a valid argument that “If C is A, then C is B” where the “If” part of the argument is the antecedent, the “then” part of the argument is the conclusion, and the form of the argument is affirming the antecedent. Since this argument is in a valid form, then if both premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. For instance, if we start with the true premises that “All cats are mammals” and “Tabby is a cat” then we can draw the valid conclusion that “Tabby is a mammal”.
On the other hand, we could use a major premise in the form “All A are B” and a minor premise in the form “C is not A”. From which we might then form the argument “If C is not A, then C is not B”. This argument is in the form of denying the antecedent, which in this case is an invalid argument. Even if we start with the valid premises that “All cats are mammals” and “Fido is not a cat”, we will come to the invalid conclusion that “Fido is not a mammal”. Even if Fido was a fish instead of a dog and therefore the conclusion turned out to be true, the conclusion would still be invalid, since you can never prove a conclusion using an invalid argument form.
To solve a problem, we must first understand the problem and then logically work out a solution using valid facts and a valid argument. That is, we need to use the laws of correct reasoning to process valid facts to obtain a valid conclusion using a valid argument. For a conclusion to be valid, the facts and the argument must each be valid. For an argument to be valid, it must be impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. This would be true whether the premises reflect reality or not.
Just as we would not want our accountant to use faulty math (like adding 2 and 2 and getting 5), we do not want others, including our representatives, to try to solve our problems using faulty logic which would be a logical fallacy. We should also watch out for logical fallacies when we try to solve our own problems.
When we, our representatives or others use logical fallacies to solve our problems, we cannot be sure that we are getting a good or valid solution. Therefore, we need to be able to recognize these logical fallacies so that we can guard against coming up with or being fed invalid results. The following are the two main types of logical fallacies.
A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and a conclusion that does not hold up to scrutiny. In other words, the form of the argument is not valid. If the form of an argument is invalid, then the argument is automatically invalid. For instance, we start with the true premise that “all humans are mammals”, where “humans” is the antecedent and “mammals” is the consequent. A valid argument form would be to "affirm the antecedent". Therefore, if we know that John is a human, then we can make the valid argument that John is a mammal.
However, "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequence" are both invalid argument forms. In the first case, we might argue that “since Fido (a dog) is not human, then Fido is not a mammal”. In the second case, we might argue that “since Fido is a mammal, then Fido is a human”. In both cases, we can easily see that these arguments are invalid. Unfortunately, some arguments that use invalid logic forms may not be as easy to spot.
An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument. In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy cannot be identified without understanding the concepts involved in the argument. That is, the form of two arguments may be the same, but one argument may be true, and the other may be false. It is all a matter of what concepts are involved.
For instance, let us look at a couple of arguments that are both in the form "Since every part of X has feature Y, therefore the whole of X has feature Y". In one case we may argue that “since every part of a toy is made of plastic, therefore the whole toy is made of plastic”. In a second case we may argue that “since every part of a toy weighs less than an ounce, therefore the whole toy weighs less than an ounce”. Although the first argument is valid, the second argument is not valid since it contains a "composition fallacy". It may or may not be true that the whole toy weighs less than an ounce, since it all depends on how many parts are in the toy and how much each part weighs.
In many cases, the arguments that individuals and groups use in various settings, including in political and policy debates, may sound convincing. However, their arguments may contain logical fallacies that they may be using as rhetorical tricks to try to manipulate us. There are dozens of different logical fallacies that rely on a logic flaw to deceive us. The following are some of the logical fallacies that are often used in political and policy debates.
A Red Herring argument is one that tries to change the subject or to distract the audience from the real issue to focus on something else where the speaker feels more comfortable and confident. This fallacy is also known as misdirection, smokescreen, clouding the issue, beside the point, and the Chewbacca defense.
For instance, I have observed numerous cases of Red Herring fallacies when certain politicians are asked why they do not want to allow an abortion exception for cases of rape. In one case, the politician changed the subject to crime and talked about how we must get rapists off our streets, which is a noble goal, but does not address the issue at hand. In another case, the politician changed the subject to illegal immigration by pointing out that the subject rapist was an illegal immigrant, even though far more rapes are done here in the U.S. by citizens and again does not address the issue at hand.
A Straw Man argument is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, which sets up an easy (and false) target for the speaker to knock down. This fallacy is also known in the U.K. as Aunt Sally.
An example of this fallacy might be the first person saying we need tighter gun control laws, and then the second person says that this first person wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The first person may simply be asking for better background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. However, that would be hard to argue against, so the second person misrepresents what the first person is saying to make it an easier target to knock down.
A Slippery Slope argument is both a version of a Red Herring Fallacy and a Straw Man Fallacy. Specifically, this is a claim that a policy which takes a small step in one direction will lead to a chain of events that will result in drastic change. This fallacy is also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, and camel’s nose under the tent.
An example of this fallacy might be arguing that teaching about slavery in our schools would lead to children believing that they are all racists, which will make them feel so bad about themselves, that it ruins their whole lives. There is no proof that any of this would happen. If taught correctly, children would learn about the horrors that some individuals and groups inflicted on others and make them want to help to ensure that this never happens again.
One big problem with someone using a slippery slope argument is that it works in both directions. For example, someone might argue that putting any restriction on gun ownership will lead to taking away guns from everyone. However, the counter argument might be that allowing any additional gun rights will lead to everyone, even criminals and the mentally ill, having unlimited access to any type of gun and to a lot more gun violence.
In a Begging the Question argument, the conclusion is assumed in one of the argument’s premises, and that premise is not supported by independent evidence. This is often called circular reasoning since it begins and ends at the same place. This fallacy is also known as assuming the initial point, the chicken and the egg, and circular reasoning.
An example of this fallacy might be someone arguing that he is innocent of a crime because the prosecutor has failed to indict him for it. This begs the question because it assumes that the premise includes the conclusion that not being indited for a crime makes someone innocent of the crime. This person does not provide evidence as to why not being indited would mean he is innocent. It may be true that he is innocent, but not being indicted may only mean that the prosecutor has not yet found enough evidence to prove that he is guilty.
A Post Hoc argument is one where the speaker confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the argument seeks to claim that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. The name of this fallacy comes from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which means “after this, therefore because of this”. This fallacy is also known as a false cause.
An example of this fallacy might be arguing that inflation was caused by the current administration's policies, because inflation became a problem after the new administration took over. Given that it can take a long time for something that causes inflation to kick in and that inflation's roots can be global, it may require a lot of digging to find the true causes of this inflation. Maybe the current administration's policies were the cause, but it could also be more likely to have been the policies of the previous administration or something entirely different.
For instance, for the high inflation that started in 2021, the main root causes were the slowdown caused by the pandemic and the rapid recovery that followed. That is, the economy and consumer spending improved after the pandemic much faster than the supply chain. Which means this inflation was caused by demand rising faster than supply. In addition, since this inflation was global, it is unlikely that any policy decisions of any one nation improved or exacerbated the situation much more than a small amount.
An Ad Hominem (attacking the person) argument is one where the speaker irrelevantly attacks the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument instead of addressing the person's argument or position. This fallacy is also known as name calling or personal attack.
An example of this fallacy might be where a Republican labels all Democrats as Communists, or where a Democrat labels all Republicans as Fascists. Each of these labels may be true for some individuals, but not all, and is irrelevant to a debate of the issues. Even the worst person we could ever imagine might still have a great idea for some issue. We need to debate the issues and not use labels, which may or may not be true and are totally irrelevant to the issues at hand.
An Appeal to Hypocrisy argument is one where the speaker deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. The idea is to get us to concentrate on what the accuser may have done and not on what the accused has done. This fallacy is also known as Tu quoque, which is Latin for "you also".
An example of this fallacy might be where someone is accused of accepting donations from bad individuals and groups, and the accused responds by accusing the accuser of having done the same thing in the past. Whether or not the accuser had done so in the past or not is irrelevant to the current accusation. Maybe the accuser also needs to answer for what he or she has done, but the accused needs to answer instead of trying to deflect.
An Appeal to Ignorance argument is one where the speaker claims that a conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it, or claims that a conclusion must be false, because there is no evidence for it. The reason individuals and groups like to use this type of argument is that it shifts the burden of proof to others. One big problem with this type of argument is that it can support multiple contradictory claims at the same time. This fallacy is also known as an argument from ignorance.
An example of this fallacy might be where someone claims there was fraud in an election because no one has proven there was no fraud. Likewise, someone might claim there was no fraud in the election, because no one has shown any evidence there was fraud. Although both claims are logically fallacious, the second claim is legally valid since we must make the legal assertion of innocent until proven guilty.
Another example of this fallacy would be where someone says something like “Prove me wrong”. We can see how absurd this would be if it were used in our justice system. That is, what if we were put on trial because someone said we were guilty of some crime, but instead of the prosecutor needing to prove we were guilty, we were told that we needed to prove that the prosecutor was wrong about our guilt. When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof must be on the person making the claim.
An Appeal to Pity argument is one that relies on provoking our emotions rather than on presenting factual evidence. The goal is to evoke our pity, sympathy, or guilt, so that we are distracted from the fact that the person’s argument does not hold water and to side with him or her anyway. This fallacy is also known as sob story, Galileo argument, and Ad Misericordiam, which is Latin for "to mercy".
An example of this fallacy can be seen in our recent elections. A political candidate will try to get our vote by complaining that the criminal investigations against him are politically motivated to hurt his chances of being elected. This political candidate wants us to vote for him because we feel pity for him instead of because we think he is the best candidate. If this political candidate is guilty of a crime, then that is a valid reason not to vote for him. However, even if he is not guilty and his accusation is true, then that is still no reason to vote for him. We should vote for him only if we think he is the better candidate.
A False Dilemma argument is one that presents limited options. This is typically done by focusing on two extremes, when in fact more possibilities exist. This fallacy is a manipulative tool designed to polarize individuals into two opposing groups by promoting one side while demonizing the other side. This fallacy is also known as False Dichotomy.
An example of this fallacy might be arguing that you either vote for a given person or bill, or you are un-American. There may be countless reasons that someone does not vote for a given person or bill, while still being a true American. We should not allow someone to limit our options; we have the right to consider all the options. That is, things are not all black or white. There may be many shades of gray, and many colors, for a situation.
There are also glaring examples of False Dilemma Fallacies in our current political system where we have just two major political parties. First, we may only have a choice between the two candidates where one is selected by each party. Second, each party takes extreme positions on a lot of issues, and we are then asked to select from one set of extreme positions or the other. Not only should we be allowed to choose from among more candidates, but to choose a position on each issue separate from choosing a position on the other issues, and we should also be allowed to choose a different position on each issue than the two that we are being presented with.
A False Equivalence argument is one that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics and despite there being notable differences between them. These arguments generally exaggerate some similarities and ignore the important differences. They are often used in debates to suggest there is a moral equivalence between two or more things. This fallacy is also known as Unreasonable Comparison.
An example of this fallacy might be arguing that since a musket, a pistol, an assault rifle, and a machine gun are all firearms, then if we are allowed to carry one of these firearms then we should be allowed to carry any of them. The problem is that although they are all firearms, they are very different in how lethal they can be and under what circumstances someone would reasonably use them.
This fallacy is often used in conjunction with Ad Hominem and Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacies. For instance, someone convicted of dumping toxic chemicals points out that his opponent was once seen littering in the park. This is a fallacy trifecta. This person is trying to deflect us from his crime by attacking the other person's character by accusing that person of also being a criminal, while using an example of a criminal act that is nowhere near equivalent.
A Hasty Generalization argument is one where a claim is based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. These arguments do not hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence. The claim may be true in some cases, but that does not mean it is always true. This fallacy is also known as over-generalization or faulty generalization.
An example of this fallacy might be where a person has a friend that got sick after getting vaccinated, so this person argues that the vaccine will make you sick. In this one case, the friend may have had a bad reaction to the vaccine, got sick before the vaccine had a chance to work or got sick due to some unrelated cause. We need to know the facts in this case and to look at far more vaccination results before being able to make any generalization.
A Bandwagon argument is one where something is assumed to be true because a lot of other individuals agree with it. The argument says that if others think a certain way, then we should too. In some cases, we may just have a lot of friends or family that believe the same way, but they may be the exception. On the other hand, even when a lot more individuals do believe the same way, they may be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. This fallacy is also known as appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses.
An example of this fallacy might be where some individuals of one religion believe that everyone should believe as they do, since all their family and friends believe as they do. One problem is that some individuals of other religions think the same about their religion. For most of us, our religion is dependent on the religion of our parents and not on any objective evaluation of other religions. If we were to have been born into a different religion, then we would probably think others should believe in that religion instead. Without objectively evaluating all possible religious beliefs there is no way to be sure any one of them is the best one.
An Equivocation argument is one that occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. The argument may use vague or unclear language or may call two different things by the same name or the same thing by two different names. This fallacy is also known as Doublespeak.
An example of this fallacy might be where a representative states that he has never voted for any bill that included any excess spending. The problem is that the term "excess" could mean different things to different individuals.
Another example would be where a candidate says that his opponent wants to spend more on our bloated government, but he wants to invest more in programs that help individuals. The problem is that the speaker is unclear as to what each candidate wants to spend money on, and it could even be that both candidates want to spend more money on the same things.
It is up to each of us to guard against logical fallacies and other forms of manipulation. To do that we need to pay close attention to what we hear, read, see and think. We need to do that whether others use them, or we fall prey to using them. When we pay close attention, we need to do more than just listen. We must also ask questions and analyze what others are telling us. This is our best defense against others taking away our power by feeding us disinformation, misinformation and lies. Not only do we need to do this in political and policy debates, but when involved in any discussion, debate or argument.
What we need to do is to learn as much as we can about using common sense and logic in our arguments and in using critical thinking and logic in evaluating arguments made by other individuals or groups. What I have presented here may be a good starting point, but additional reading or classes on the subject would be helpful to all of us.
We can also make a game out of identifying when individuals and groups use these logical fallacies, or any of the other ways that some individuals or groups use to try to manipulate us. For instance, I have always liked taking apart advertisements to see how companies are trying to manipulate us into buying their products. Not only can this be fun, but it can save us money by not letting ourselves be manipulated into buying something that we do not need nor want.
This is especially valuable when we listen to politicians so we can identify their attempts to manipulate us. Unfortunately, too many politicians use so many manipulative statements that it can often be exhausting trying to identify all of them. When a politician tries to manipulate us, I want to know why. To me, the answer seems to be that our politicians care more about getting and keeping power over us instead of working for us and representing our best interests.
When we are looking for, finding and following our path through life, knowledge is the key to finding the best path. By being able to distinguish between all the true and false road signs along the way, we will stand a much better chance of staying on a good path or getting to a better path that we can follow.
Life -
Some facts about Life to keep in mind on Our Future Path.
|