apologetics

Another type of fallacy assumption is when people assume that something will just continue without any check or balances. Or that something is acceptable because people did not object before to the progression of events up until now. We call this the “Slippery Slope Fallacy.”

Below is an example of a medieval proverb that is sound in its logic and not an example of a "Slippery Slope" fallacy even though it is often quoted to support such fallacies.  Have a careful read of it and then compare it to the fallacy examples at the bottom of the article.

Another type of assumption is when, by design or accident, someone tries to force you into a position you do not want to agree to. This can be done when someone asks you a “loaded question." It is a question that contains a hidden assumption or agenda. It is really two or more questions squashed into one. Answering yes or no to it will not fully describe what you would like to state.

A simple equivocation is when someone switches the meaning of a word in the middle of their argument. For example, they may begin by using the word "right" to describe the direction opposite to left, then later use it to describe being correct in some aspect. They did not use these words in two separate claims but linked them to one subject, hoping that you did not notice it.

We've all probably experienced this over the years. Circular reasoning is when someone talks in circles without proving their point. They use a string of things to prove each other, then return to where they started. For example, “X” is true because “Y” is true, and “Y” is true because “X” is true. Whether or not they intend to do it, they are simply using smoke and mirrors to trick you into accepting their position.

Consider a disagreement with a scarecrow. The scarecrow will not argue back; therefore, you are free to argue about anything you want. Furthermore, you can alter its argument so that you can more easily defeat it, and it cannot object to the change. To defeat the scarecrow's argument, you can change it any way you like so that you can easily light the straw man on fire and consume him.

A straw man argument is essentially a made-up argument that doesn't really exist.

This fallacy is also called "Argumentum ad Populum". This is when someone tries to make their argument based on the fact that it is a popular choice among people, or what most people believe. It is an extension of the Faulty Appeal to Authority. If it is wrong to appeal to one person who is not a legitimate authority on a subject, then it is just as wrong to appeal to multiple people who are also not experts on the subject. 

We defer to all kinds of experts in our lives.  When we are not feeling well, we go to the doctor.  When our car starts to blow smoke and the engine is running rough, we go to a mechanic. Generally, we follow the advice of these experts in their fields because they know more than we do. That makes good sense. But what if we asked our mechanic about our health issues and our doctor about our car troubles? Would you trust them implicitly and take their advice? Perhaps we shouldn't. 

This logic fallacy is a type of Ad Hominem Fallacy in which the other person avoids the question by shifting the blame onto you.  Have you ever tried to help someone, only for them to turn it back on you? Usually, it stems from a guilty mind attempting to rationalise actions for which they lack a strong defence.  This fallacy also occurs when someone claims that two wrongs make a right.