Bad Arguments - An Essay On Illogical Thinking
On argumentation and logic.
The reigning “champ” of philosophy is the one who knows how to construct “good arguments.” That means they are valid, sound, and based on true premises. This cowboy (or girl) does not contradict themself and knows how to argue. However, to know how to argue, one must also know how not to argue. Here, we enter what this article is about.
Introduction
In the whole history of philosophy, there have been philosophers who wanted to make a case for their ideas of what they think a certain state of affairs either is or should be. This, however, they discovered relatively quickly, to require a standard system of structure in the way language works, so that what they were explaining could be followed and understood clearly. And so, logic was developed, not for clear understanding necessarily, but initially for the validity of reasoning. Logic, according to Webster, concerns itself with “principles of correct reasoning and the formal principles of inference and demonstration.” So that we are not expressing our ideas based on emotions and beliefs, “just because we feel them to be so.”
Knowing how not to argue, means in part, that not only is one minimizing potential mistakes in their reasoning, they also know how to “course-correct” it, meaning admitting when one has made them. There is a difference between good reasoning and good communication. The latter can exclude the first entirely, using rhetoric (persuasion).
Logic is concerned with argumentation and the correct reasoning of how a conclusion follows from a set of premises. However, if there is a mistake somewhere within that line of reasoning, then the argument is not a good argument. So, what I am interested in detecting in this article is just how bad can you make them. Let us start with one of the most necessary things, or parts, of an argument: a premise.
The Premises
A premise is a statement, where its function is to help arrive at a conclusion logically. If we said: “The world is an illusion,” and left it at that, this statement would not be helped by anything that would justify making the claim. It is missing a premise, or multiple premises, that would help explain why or how this conclusion is arrived at. So, to give a reason why it is an illusion would help us immensely.
The following is a simple example of the form of an argument, and this one is known as a syllogism, which in this case is formally noted as a “modus ponens”:
P -> Q (if P, then Q)
P
.: Q (therefore, conclusion)
And it is:
If it is a bird, then it is black. <- The first premise (false)
A magpie is a bird. <- The second premise (true)
Therefore, it is black. <- The conclusion (false)
Not all birds are black, and even magpies are not entirely black. Which brings us to explore what a premise comprises. We assume that when we see a premise; it is supposed to be true. If nothing makes a case for the “realness” of the premise, then it is a lousy premise if we are trying to prove it, and we obviously will not believe the conclusion. However, the validity of an argument does not necessarily require its premise, or even the conclusion, to be true. It can be logically valid that the conclusion can follow the premises, even if at least one premise is false. Consider the previous syllogism. It is valid, yet it is a bad argument because of the first premise.
The definition of validity, is exactly an argument when and only when there is no logically possible situation where all the premises are true and the conclusion is false at the same time.
It would be quite another thing to add a word to the conclusion of the previous argument so that it becomes:
If it is a bird, then it is black. <- (still false)
A magpie is a bird. <- (still true)
Therefore, it is not black. <- (the conclusion which now suddenly turns into a…uh…! Hint: it is true as a conclusion.)
So, premises are the opening or intermediate steps in an argument that help us arrive logically at a conclusion. However, as said, neither all premises nor the conclusion has to be true in order for the argument to be valid. This brings us to the reason it is still a bad argument, and what would make it a good one. Enter, the soundness of an argument.
How To Argue
The difference between a valid and a sound argument is that while in the first, you do not need the argument to be true to follow a consistent reasoning; you need all of the premises to be true and the conclusion to be valid in the second.
Let us take another example, using the form “modus tollens”:
P -> Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
And the argument is:
If John is alive, he exists.
John does not exist.
Therefore he is not alive.
This is both a valid and a sound argument. The conclusion follows logically from true premises. There is no room for doubt about the truth of anything within it. Therefore, it is a “good argument.” Wait a second, were we not supposed to explore what bad arguments are? Fine.
How to Argue Badly
When you want to make a case for something, be it the existence of God, the Flat Earth, or why cannibalism is mandatory, first you have to create an argument. Let us suppose I had a conclusion: “The Earth is flat.” All right, now I need a premise. Based on everything we know until now, let us start with this one: we can only witness the Earth as being flat when we go outside and turn around; we cannot see a curvature extending across the horizon line. Yay! But note that, while the statement as such is not false per se, we know the conclusion is false based on evidence of the Earth as seen from outer space.
This argument now only has the form:
We can only witness the Earth as flat when we go outside and turn around; we cannot see a curvature extending across the horizon line.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Earth is flat.
That is clearly not sufficient to explain the conclusion, even if it were true. Something needs to be added into the mix: more premises! Let us try adding a couple more (bad) ones:
Premise 1: We can only witness the Earth as being flat when we go outside and turn around; we cannot see a curvature extending across the horizon line.
Premise 2: If there is no curvature of Earth, then it is not spherical.
Premise 3: If gravity works the way it is supposed to work, then the massive bodies of water would not seek a level surface everywhere on Earth if it were spherical.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Earth is flat.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say. Regardless of the subpar reasoning behind these statements, which makes them false, only the first premise is true in any workable way, and even that, from the ground with our naked eyes. So, it is a bad argument no matter how you look at it.
Therefore, what makes a bad argument bad is that a false conclusion follows from equally false premises in this case. However! The conclusion does not necessarily have to be false for the argument to be bad. As was said earlier, an argument is invalid only if its conclusion is false because it does not follow from the premises. In other words, an argument can be valid following false premises, or its opposite!
If you know in the first place that an argument has a conclusion that is questionable, try to do your background research about its subject as well as possible. Otherwise, you will look like a fool. But there is a further point to be made here: it is extremely hard to convince someone that the Earth is round, especially if they regard all scientific evidence as wrong, manipulated, or fabricated. So, a person who sees God as existing, for example, will not be easily persuaded by evidence against it. However, if the argument relates to the obviously false belief they believe in, then it will possibly never be sound.
Now, what about the complete absence of arguments?
Non-Argumentative Expression
Just because a series of statements can be the basis for a solid or equally goofy excuse for an argument, not all statements are arguments. Consider: “Would you open the door, please?” is not an argument; it is a request. Requests cannot be arguments unless they are supportive of conclusions or used to influence one’s beliefs in a reasoned way. Equally, the statement: “Sit down!” Is not an argument; it is an exclamation of demand.
In fact, it is possible to write entire texts or essays using non-argumentative language; however, that is difficult to do. It is attractive to use analogies, metaphors, or anecdotes to bring points across without them being as arguments. However, to do successful philosophy, one must eventually create arguments to share one’s points of view. Why? Because one, it comes to us so naturally, and second, because using argumentation, we can arrive at new possibilities, beliefs, and opinions through intellectual discourse and see more than we would ordinarily see. And third, it can be fun!
Logic Is for Weaklings
Using logic in our daily thinking is, I think, not only useful or practical, it can give new ways of seeing the world. However, lots of people in everyday conduct do not use these forms of argumentation when they want to claim something as either true, or something we ought to do, or so on. They simply claim it. And hope people will believe them. That does not work when you have a more complex idea you want to apply or see in the world. You need reasons. Good reasons. A well-established, rigorous, state-of-the-art argument with true premises and a conclusion that follows from them.
There is a concept in philosophy known as rhetoric, which means the art of persuasion. And this is what most of the information that comes at us through media is carried by. They do not give a damn about whether it is true or if you need it; they just want you to buy and subscribe to it. They want to win you over. It has nothing to do with good reasons, nor good reasoning.
And for this reason, it is more important than ever these days to spot and identify the bad arguments from the good ones. Otherwise, we would be led on by the bullshit of carefully designed ads, marketing, or other messages fed through our televisions, phones, radios, or computers. To know what a bad argument is, is therefore to overcome the massive amount of manipulation we encounter in our society.
Lots of people using these tactics will commit often a fallacy. Most fallacies in terms of logic refer to formal fallacies, which have one definition: an invalid argument. That means that they have committed an error in their reasoning along the way in the argument, leading to a distraction or undermining of the conclusion. In my book, that is a clear bad argument. We commit fallacies all the time, without even noticing them. One of the most common fallacies is the ad hominem, which in turn is an informal fallacy, and it means a personal attack on the person doing the arguing, instead of addressing the points of the argument.
Conclusion?
To recap this very basic introduction, an argument is a set of statements with premises, followed by a conclusion. A valid argument is one where its conclusion follows from the premises logically, regardless of whether the premises are true. Sound arguments are where the premises are true, and the conclusion is valid. A non-argument is a statement that does not have premises or a conclusion. A bad argument is a conclusion that does not follow from its premises. And a fallacy is an error within an argument, which might still lead to a convincing conclusion, but which is unsupported, therefore making the argument a non-sequitur, or invalid.
The “true intellectual” is one who does not only know where to use arguments and how, they know when to honestly admit when they are wrong. A person can have a bad argument, yet persuade people by the buckets. But doing philosophy is not just convincing people of your ideas or answering questions correctly. It is about investigating why they need to be asked.
Always question things, and at least try to create good arguments instead of bad ones. I hope that, while I may not be very knowledgeable about logic or arguments, this article will spark some interest for people new to the subject.
L.
P.S. If you spot any mistakes, or other possible corrections I could make, please feel free to email me, just don’t expect me to reply necessarily. This has been one of the most serious posts I’ve written in a long time. Hopefully the next one will be less so.
