Beyond Feelings - Vincent Ruggiero.original_ [53]
CONCLUSION: I've got to get even with Mary because she offended me without cause.
COMMENT: Illogical conclusion. You don't have to respond as Mary did. You could choose to overlook or forgive the offense.
CONCLUSION: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
COMMENT: Illogical conclusion. The police and the military would still have guns and, if the law so provided, so would any other people who met the new requirements for ownership.
CONCLUSION: The Soviet government has never given their citizens any freedoms, so their recent moves toward democracy are clearly part of a plan to get us to let down our guard and become vulnerable to attack.
COMMENT: illogical conclusion. The conclusion reached here is one possible conclusion among several. But there is insufficient evidence to consider it probable, let alone certain. The Soviet government may instead be responding to internal social pressures or to harsh economic penalties of collectivism and repression.
EITHER-OR THINKING
This fallacy consists of believing that the only views one can take of an issue are extreme views. According to this belief, for example, we must be either for abortion on demand or against abortion in all cases; in favor of retaining the welfare system in its present form or abolishing it altogether. Yet it is perfectly possible to endorse abortion in some cases but not in others and to oppose welfare abuses without denying the need for welfare. To deny ourselves the opportunity even to consider moderate views on issues is to condemn ourselves to unreasonableness on most issues. Extreme views are seldom reasonable views.
This does not mean that we should be wishy-washy or compromise matters of principle. If the most sensible view of an issue is total affirmation or rejection, then that is the view we should take. But we should not allow the either-or fallacy to force us to that view.
ATTACKING THE PERSON
There are times when the character of a person is the issue under discussion; for example, in cases where a member of Congress is being investigated for alleged lawbreaking or ethical violations. In such cases, it is appropriate to focus our argument on the person. However, in cases where the issue is an idea, it is inappropriate to focus on the person.
Consider the issue of whether nuclear power plants are a danger to human beings and the environment. Among the supporters of those plants (as among the opponents) there are, presumably, informed people and uninformed, honest and dishonest, emotionally balanced and emotionally unbalanced. If we find a supporter who is uninformed, dishonest and emotionally unbalanced, what does that tell us about his side of the issue? Nothing at all. It might still be the most reasonable view. The only way to make a decision about an issue is to analyze the issue itself.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Also known as argument from ignorance, this fallacy consists of demanding that others disprove our assertions. Whenever we make an assertion, it is our responsibility to support it, not other people's to refute it. (They may, of course, choose to refute it if they wish.) And the more our assertion departs from what knowledgeable people believe, the greater is our responsibility to support it.
FALSE CAUSE
It is perfectly natural to wonder "Why did this happen?" in fact, one mark of a critical thinker is that she asks this question more frequently than others do. However, she realizes that mere closeness in time does not prove a cause and effect relationship. In other words, one event can follow another by coincidence and thus be entirely unrelated to it.
The fallacy of false cause occurs when coincidence is ignored. It consists of thinking, "If B occurred after A, A must have caused B." This error is undoubtedly the basis of most superstitions. Misfortune befalls someone shortly