This is part two of a two part article. Part one can be found here.
In the prior post, we looked at some of the ways to engage conversation on social platforms and discussed briefly some of the difficulties faced when dealing with topics surrounding the phenomena. In part 2, we look at some of the informal fallacies that creep into some conversations, how to identify them and ways to avoid going down those roads to nowhere.
What is a logical fallacy (formal and informal)?
In Philosophy, logic can be viewed as a methodology for establishing principles by which we may construct or interpret information presented to us, generally in the form of an argument. The word argument in colloquial usage generally refers to squabbles or disagreements between individuals or groups. In formal logic, an argument is a set of statements (called premises) that are presented in order to support or give reason to believe additional statements (called conclusions). A fallacy is a defect in one or more of those statements presented that leads to a mistake in reasoning or conclusion and can make a poor argument seem strong when it is in fact unsound or uncogent. For a deeper dive into the basic tenets of Logic in Philosophy, there are a number of resources available and I would recommend beginning with reference sites such as Wikipedia or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Formal Fallacy
Formal fallacies are defects in form or structure of an argument. For example:
- All apples are fruits.
- All bananas are fruits.
- All apples are bananas.
Of the group identified as ‘Fruits’, there exists subsets within that group, one of which is called ‘apples’ and the other ‘bananas’. The example allows us to easily see how the form of this argument is invalid. The categories used in the example are irrelevant to see the invalid form. Of note, one way to make this example valid is to exchange ‘bananas’ and ‘fruits’ in the second statement. It would thus read:
- All apples are fruits.
- All fruits are bananas.
- All apples are bananas.
The argument is valid (though unsound due to the false premise), as apples are presented as a subset of the group fruits, and fruits are listed as a subset within the group ‘bananas’, it follows that the group ‘bananas’ includes within it all apples.
Informal Fallacy
Informal fallacies are those that appear after the contents of the argument are evaluated (and not directly to form). For example:
- Hurricanes are rainstorms.
- Rainstorms occur daily around the world.
- Hurricanes occur daily around the world.
To understand this fallacy requires one to know that there are different types of rainstorms, varying in formation and intensity, of which hurricanes are but one specific type. So, while it is true that hurricanes are (a type of) rainstorms, and across the world different parts on a daily basis are experiencing (different types of) rainstorms, it does not follow that all rainstorms occurring daily are (of a formation and intensity of) hurricanes.
Informal fallacies present in many different ways across varying types of arguments, so many ways that that logicians over the centuries have attempted to categorize and group these types of fallacies.
Advancing any conversation, including topics covering unexplained phenomena, requires that we be cognizant of the different ways informal fallacies present and to avoid falling victims to these threads in other’s arguments and our own. Here are 5 fallacies that pop up frequently in the UAP topic and how to spot them.
1. Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum)
In Ufology, ‘appeal to the people’ is an often used approach because the speaker or writer is generally addressing an audience who already believes in or is open to belief about UAP topics. The speaker or writer will use premises that the audience takes as being true (or that they wish were true) to persuade the audience to accept a particular conclusion. This can either be either in a direct or indirect voice.
Direct Voice
The direct voice presents information either as excited optimism or suspicious pessimism depending on the emotion it aims to arouse. Consider this example:
- A new era in UAP disclosure is upon us! We are closer now then we ever have been to finally unlocking the secrets held tightly within our government! No longer will we be silent on this matter! Disclosure is our Right! Demand your representative vote YES to approve the new Defense Authorization Act and lets find out the truth!
Notice the emotion these statements attempt to elicit. It creates passion and fervor, and a call to action immediacy. It attempts to induce a sense of camaraderie and uses words like ‘secrets’ to create a unifying target and ‘Right‘ to justify action. The red flag in this scenario is the conclusion that supports pressuring representatives to vote ‘YES’ based on a tiny fraction of a larger piece of legislation. Representatives have to consider the whole of the proposed legislation, weighing all aspects before making a decision (hopefully) in line with the will of their constituents. By appealing to the feelings of a subset of voters, the arguer advances a much broader conclusion, of which other aspects in the legislation which may not be in line with the subset voter are glossed over or ignored.
Indirect Voice
An indirect approach is much more common in ordinary language and can be broken into specific forms that exemplify this approach. The one I’ll focus on here is the bandwagon argument. In the previous example, the usage of the pronoun ‘we’ is meant to imply the feeling of inclusion, as being part of something grand. It taps into that ‘fear of missing out’ or being left behind in the conversation, or as non-supportive. This is a powerful tool when speaking to anyone who wishes to be part of a group espousing like-minded beliefs for reasons of acceptance and respect.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Appeal to Ignorance is an inductive weakness whereby the premises are not supported or supportive of the conclusion. This type of fallacy finds its home in many arguments within the UAP topic due the weakness of the premises – involving anecdotal or other information that cannot be (or has yet to be) proven. A strong assertive conclusion is nonetheless offered given these weak premises and that forms the basis of this fallacy. Consider this example:
- Researchers in Ufology have for decades been trying to prove the existence of extraterrestrial visitation to our planet, but no one has ever succeeded in providing that definitive evidence. Therefore, we must conclude that extraterrestrial visitation is nothing but nonsense.
Consider a variation of the same statement:
- Skeptics and ‘debunkers’ have attempted to show unidentified phenomena have worldly explanations. But they have only been able to provide prosaic explanations for half of the total cases. Therefore, we must conclude that the other half prove extraterrestrial visitation is happening!
Both examples error in that the premises tell us something about the groups of people (researchers and skeptics) and their efforts, many of which may still be ongoing, however the conclusions offer definitive positions as if those efforts were were exhaustive or complete. It also ignores the qualifications of the researchers or skeptics, which is not necessarily requisite but can add sufficiency in determining inductive strength. Thus, how this type of fallacy is received is largely dependent on the presumptions of the audience. Consider the legal presumption that all accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence against the accused, defense attorneys will often cite lack of evidence presented as a reason to conclude innocence. In the legal sense, guilt here is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which doesn’t mean the defendant did not commit the crime, but that the evidence presented was insufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence before proof.
3. Argument Against the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
This type of fallacy always includes one arguer advancing a position against a specific individual, group, or organization. This position is generally given as a response to a conclusion or stance given by the latter individual or group. This can come in the form of a direct criticism of the person (abusive), a presupposition of influence or intention (circumstantial), or to cite some hypocrisy (tu quoque or “you too”) that has occurred. An example of each form are:
- (abusive) UAP Researcher Pete advocates that the US Government is not withholding of extraterrestrial evidence because it actually doesn’t have any evidence. But Pete is a crazy conspiracy theorists, a felon, and a womanizer. Therefore, we should not believe anything he says.
- (circumstantial) UAP Researcher Pete advocates that the US Government is not withholding of extraterrestrial evidence because it actually doesn’t have any evidence. But Pete works for a defense contractor with ties to the Government so we should ignore what he has to say.
- (tu quoque) UAP Researcher Pete said that we should refrain from attempting to enter restricted space around Area 51. But Pete was arrested 5 years ago for breaching the perimeter of Area 51. Therefore, we shouldn’t listen to anything he says.
In the first example, the character of Pete (conspiracy theorist, felon, womanizer) is cited as reason to discredit what he says but has no actual relevance to Pete’s statement. In the second example, it is implies that Pete is advocating this position because of his job. He may stand to lose his job if he says otherwise, or his company may lose its contractor status. It is because of this that Pete holds his position. How Pete may directly or indirectly affected by this circumstance however is irrelevant to whether or not his premise supports his conclusion.
4. False Dichotomy
False dichotomy is when two alternate positions are presented by the arguer as the only two possibilities available. The arguer then dismisses the non-desired possibility, leaving only the other possibility as the apparent conclusion. This type of fallacy often flies a bit under the radar because the disjunctive (either/or) is often implied rather than being explicitly stated. Two examples:
- (explicit) Either unexplained phenomena is the result of some extraterrestrial influence or all phenomena has a prosaic explanation. But many reports exhibit characteristics that defy our current laws of physics and display no known attributes that can be explained prosaically. Therefore, what we are witnessing is the influence of some extraterrestrial intelligence.
- (implied) Unexplained phenomena remains in many ways a mystery waiting to be unlocked. When considering whether or not these experiences are in some way influenced by an extraterrestrial intelligence, one should note that to date, no evidence beyond anecdotal or circumstantial evidence has ever been given to support we are being visited, let alone influenced, by extraterrestrials. The mystery is solved. The extraordinary is merely the unexplained ordinary.
In the explicit example, we see the classic “either this or that, not this, therefore that” argument. In the implied example, we get one possibility that is subsequently argued against, before a completely different conclusion is stated without examination (implying the conclusion as the only other possibility). False dichotomies can be even more subtle and that’s why they often go unnoticed. At times, the arguer will conclude with only a series of premises that leads the audience to the conclusion intended by the arguer all along, without explicitly saying what that is. The audience ‘fills in the blanks’ on their own and in the end believes they came to their own conclusions, without ever considering if alternate paths exists.
5. Red Herring
This fallacy involves the arguer diverting the argument and then reaching a conclusion from the diversion. It gets its name from a method used in training hunting dogs to stay on a particular scent. The trainers would use red herrings (a highly aromatic fish) to cross the scent in an attempt to see which dogs would stay on the original scent and not get distracted by the fish. An effective Red Herring is a subtle one where the audience fails to notice it. An example of this is:
- Some researchers believe the Government has buried its UFO technology research in highly classified, special access programs. But all secret tech currently being researched is likely buried in some special access program and in the interest of national security we should take a step back to realize why these programs should remain hidden from the public.
In the example, the original statement involved the alleged research on UFO tech being buried in highly classified special access programs. The argument then shifts to the importance of special access programs and plays on the emotion of the need for national security before concluding that we should not pursue the original statement further (implied).
Avoiding Fallacies
The easiest way to avoid falling into a fallacious argument is through awareness. Awareness comes by understanding the basic structure of arguments and what red flags can appear as you continue your journey. There are a number of other fallacies in argument than what was presented in this article. In everyday language, arguments can be much more complex than the simple examples presented here. Stop. Think about what is being said. Does [b] naturally flow from [a]? Can we conclude [x] given the information presented? Engage the information out there to equip yourself with the tools needed to advance the conversation. I like to think of it as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Many are confident we have some of the pieces. There remain a lot of other pieces that do not make sense to us. We don’t know the ‘whole picture’. Many have speculated based on the pieces presented thus far. There may be ‘fake’ pieces intermingled, some created intentionally, others not. We live in an extraordinary moment where information is transferred instantly across the world to anyone who has access to the platform used. It is our responsibility to listen not just to hear, but to understand. Ask yourself, “If this is true, then …” and challenge your mind to consider implications, possibilities, alternatives, etc., how each statement (premise) stands, how each statement fits with the other, and does the conclusion necessarily or possibly follow. Changing the way we see and think about information is how we avoid the ‘fake pieces’ and truly start to advance the conversation.
