Episode 38: Fallacy Watch--A Few Relevance Fallacies

In this episode April explains some very common relevance fallacies--Straw Man, Begging the Question, and Two Wrongs Make a Right. Let's all try not to commit these fallacies, okay?

Episode 38 Show Notes:

https://philosophyterms.com/fallacy-of-relevance/#google_vignette--a handy reference website that gives basic explanations of terms related to philosophy as well as short biographies of many famous philosophers.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/why-we-say-phrase-red-herring-hunting-origins/--a fun discussion of "red herrings" from the official website for the BBC History Magazine

https://www.etymonline.com/word/straw%20man--want to know the origin of a word or common phrase? This is the website for you.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/10/protecting-free-speech-compels-some-form-of-social.html--a great article about why social media needs some kind of regulation.

https://effectiviology.com/begging-the-question/--this website always has clear, concise definitions and examples of fallacies.

https://helpfulprofessor.com/straw-man-fallacy-examples/--legit professors help you with your homework by answering almost any academic question you might have.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/whataboutism--hey it's an encyclopedia so...

https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Introduction_to_Logic_and_Critical_Thinking_2e_(van_Cleave)/04%3A_Informal_Fallacies/4.03%3A_Fallacies_of_Relevance--this is an entire OER (Open Educational Resource) philosophy textbook, so anyone can access and read it.

Transcript

Title: Think It Through: The Clearer Thinking Podcast
Episode: Fallacy Watch: Three Common Relevance Fallacies

Host: Hello and welcome back to Think It Through, where we break down logical missteps and sharpen our reasoning skills. Today, we’re going to look at three fallacies that sneak into our everyday arguments: The Straw Man Fallacy, Begging the Question, and Two Wrongs Make a Right. I’ve been seeing a lot of examples of these out in the real world so I thought it would be a good idea to do an episode about them. Each of these fallacies distorts logic in a different way, but once you know how to recognize them, you’ll be well on your way to clearer thinking. 

These fallacies may be different from each other, but they do have something in common—they are all relevance fallacies. According to the Philosphy Terms website, a relevance fallacy is one in which an argument is made using evidence that may seem important but doesn’t actually have to do with the topic at hand; it’s not relevant. Now, that information may feel like it somehow fits, and it even may be tangentially related, but if looked at closely you’d see it’s not the kind of evidence that would prove the conclusion in the particular argument being made.

Relevance fallacies are often very effective because they act as a distraction. What are they distracting you from? Probably the fact that the arguer doesn’t have any good evidence for their claim. They figure if they bring up something that sounds convincing, you’ll believe they’re making sense when they’re really not. Relevance fallacies are often called “red herring” fallacies—and yes, the term red herring refers to those smelly little smoked fish. According to the BBC History Extra article “Why do we say red herring?” there are a couple of possible origins of the phrase; the one that I’m most familiar with is that farmers would often put these little herrings around the edges of their fields to distract foxhounds during fox hunting season. Farmers did not want the dogs or the horses trampling their fields, and the scent of the fish would distract them to the point that they would avoid the fields altogether. Whatever the origin, the term red herring now refers to a deliberately misleading piece of information that diverts attention from the truth. So, relevance fallacies are often used by arguers to distract the listener from the reality that their argument actually sucks. Now, that’s if the arguer is doing it intentionally; but just as often they simply don’t realize they are committing a relevance fallacy, and they think their evidence is perfectly fine. Either way, these fallacies are often successful. 

There are lots of relevance fallacies, but as I mentioned we are going to focus on three very common ones—the Straw Man fallacy, Begging the Question, and Two Wrongs Make a Right. 

Ok, Let’s think it through.

Have you ever been in an argument where someone completely misrepresented what you said, making your side of the argument easier to attack? That’s the Straw Man Fallacy. The term “straw man” is referring to a scarecrow, which is obviously not a real person, but instead a representation or a caricature of one. However, a scarecrow could be mistaken for a real person if you’re not paying attention or looking too closely. The Online Etymology Dictionary says that the first recorded use of this term for argumentative purposes was in 1898, where the “man of straw” referred to “an easily refuted imaginary opponent in an argument.” The Straw Man Fallacy works like this: Instead of engaging with someone’s actual position, the other person distorts it into either a weaker version or a more exaggerated one and then attacks that version instead. So, they make the person’s original claim seem either ridiculous or horrible. It’s an easy way to “win” an argument… but only by defeating a position that was never truly there.

Here's an exchange between two people, let’s call them Shayla and Dan:

Shayla says: “I think we should have some regulations on social media to reduce misinformation.”
Dan responds: “Oh, so you want to ban free speech and control what people can say online?”

Shayla never suggested banning free speech, but Dan twisted the statement into an extreme position that most people would agree is not a good idea. He dodges the real discussion by turning the idea of regulating social media into an attack on our freedom of speech. Now, is that a debate that’s worth having? Sure; I’ll link to an article by Rand, a research organization about public policy challenges, in which they argue that protecting free speech actually compels some kind of social media regulation. But Shayla and Dan will never get to a point in their argument where they might have that kind of discussion, which is too bad because it’s worth discussing.

I’ve seen the Straw Man fallacy used in 2nd Amendment arguments as well. As soon as someone mentions that common-sense gun regulation measures might be a good idea, someone else will say something like, “Oh yeah? Just try coming into my house and taking my guns away.” The second person is misrepresenting the first person’s argument by morphing “common sense gun regulations” into “taking everybody’s guns away.” They probably recognize, either consciously or intuitively, that it’s just so much easier to claim that it’s a bad idea to barge into someone’s house and take their guns without cause than it is to sit down and have a real discussion about what common-sense gun regulations might actually look like. So, as you can see, this fallacy stops any real, constructive discussion by representing the original claim in the worst possible light and then dismissing it as ridiculous.

So how do we avoid this trap? 

First, make sure YOU’RE not the one doing this! Always clarify what someone actually said before responding, don’t just jump to the worst or most ridiculous representation of their claim. And then be sure to restate the opposing argument fairly before challenging it, as in “Let me see if I am getting this—are you saying that…” and then say what you believe their claim to be. And if you’re in the middle of a heated discussion and realize that someone is attempting to “Straw Man” your claim, stop and say, “That is not what I said, that’s a misrepresentation of my idea. Here is what I am saying…” and then explain yourself. The other person might still attempt to exaggerate or otherwise undermine your claim but just keep taking it back to your original meaning. If nothing else, they’ll realize that you won’t let your words be misinterpreted.

Next up: Begging the Question. Despite how it sounds, this fallacy isn’t about raising a question—it’s about assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove. Itamar Shatz from the Effectiviology website, which is one of my go-to sources for anything fallacy oriented, says the term “begging the question” is a direct translation of the Latin term “petitio principii,” which I might have mispronounced but you probably don’t know how it’s pronounced either. Anyway, it’s a form of circular reasoning, which argues that something is true because it is true. So the “because” part of that argument (which should be the evidence that proves the claim to be true) is the same thing as what the person is trying to prove. This “evidence” might be worded differently, but if you look closely, you will see that it’s the same thing as the claim. Like this statement— “The news is fake because it’s all just made up!” Saying “the news is fake” and then using as evidence for that claim, “it’s all just made up” means you’re basically saying, “the news is fake because the news is fake.” 

Here’s another example:

Dan: “Why do you believe in astrology?”
Shayla: “Because horoscopes are always right.”
Dan: “How do you know they’re always right?”
Shayla: “Because astrology is a real thing, Dan.”

See the problem? The argument assumes the truth of astrology without providing any proof. Shayla believes in astrology because she thinks astrology is real, but belief in something is not proof that it’s real. This is a circular argument.

Another classic example: God is real because the bible says so, and the bible was inspired by God. Now I’m not here to say that God isn’t real. What I’m saying is that this is a bad argument for the existence of god, it’s begging the question. God is real because god is real. Do better, all you apologists out there.

Ok, to be honest, most parents have used this fallacy with their kids at some point, like when you ask your teenager to clean their room, or do the dishes, or not stay out until 2 am, and they say “Who made you the boss?” And you say “I’m the boss because I’m in charge!” The Helpful Professor website says about this example, “Many parents (who are perhaps too lazy to explain why they’re in charge) simply tell their children that they’re in charge because they’re in charge! That’s just the way it is.” I mean, I totally get that saying, “I’m the mom, that’s why!” is a lot quicker and easier than going into all the reasons why your kid needs to do (or not do) something. But a better way to respond to children, especially if it’s about an important decision, would be something like, “Well, I’ve been around a lot longer than you, have a lot more experience, and so I can make better decisions. Plus legally I’m responsible for your actions until you’re 18, so it’s in both of our best interests for me to make this decision.” Your kid is still not gonna like that, but at least you’ve provided some evidence and reasoning, and aren’t guilty of begging the question.

To avoid this fallacy, you really need to understand the basic structure and aim of an argument. In short, for every claim that’s made, there should be some kind of evidence to support that claim that isn’t the claim itself. If you recognize that the only piece of evidence being presented in a particular argument is just a restatement of the thing that someone is trying to prove, you’ve uncovered a begging the question fallacy.

And when you’re the person putting forth a claim, ask yourself: Am I assuming my conclusion is true rather than proving it? If the reasoning feels circular, it probably is. Itamar Shatz thinks that a more accurate name for begging the question would be “assuming the conclusion.” I like that name better, it’s certainly more descriptive of what’s happening in this fallacy. If we just assume our conclusion is correct and use that as evidence to prove it’s correct we are guilty of this fallacy, whatever we choose to call it.

Finally, let’s look at a third popular fallacy, one I bet you’ve also committed before: Two Wrongs Make a Right. This fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism, and the tu quoque fallacy. It occurs when a person justifies a bad action by pointing to another bad action committed by someone else. Here’s another example from Shayla and Dan, Dan’s driving a car and Shayla is the passenger:

Shayla: “Oh my gosh, Dan, you’re so close to that car, why are you tailgating it?”
Dan: “Didn’t you see? That guy cut me off and almost caused an accident!”

So, the guy ahead of him cuts him off in traffic, which is dangerous and wrong, and now Dan feels justified to tailgate him, which is also dangerous and wrong.

Or how about this one, Dan has managed to get them both home without crashing, and Shayla asks him: “Do we have any printer paper?”

Dan: “Yeah, I just took a whole carton of paper from the supply closet at work.”

Shayla: “Um, isn’t that stealing?”

Dan: “So what? They’re a big corporation, you think they don’t steal?”

Dan uses the idea that the corporation he works for probably steals to say it’s ok for him to steal their office supplies. In each case, Dan’s evidence is the fact that other people have also done something wrong and uses that to justify his actions. Does the wrongdoing of others make Dan’s bad actions any more acceptable? Not really. But this fallacy makes it seem that way by shifting the focus away from Dan’s personal responsibility. Yeah, Dan’s kind of a jerk.

Now, if the person who did something wrong is accusing the person arguing with them of also doing something wrong, that’s a form of this fallacy known as tu quoque, which is Latin for “you do it too.” Like the dad telling his son not to ditch school, and the son says, “Why not? I know you ditched school all the time when you were my age!”

Now you can see why this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. The son is calling the dad a hypocrite because he did the same thing that he’s telling the son not to do. And, sure, that is the definition of hypocritical, so the dad might think, yeah, he’s right, I can’t really tell him not to ditch school if I did it too, which is exactly what the son wants him to think. However, the dad’s actions are separate from the actions of the son; someone else’s mistake doesn’t justify your mistake. So saying the dad did it too does not actually do anything to diminish the wrongness of the son ditching his classes.

You’ve probably heard the other term for this fallacy, whataboutism. It’s used a lot in social and political commentary these days. Brittanica.com defines it as a counteraccusation that “diverts attention from the original criticism of a person, country, organization, or idea by returning the same criticism in response, but that criticism has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.” So when a nation deflects criticism of its human rights violations by saying, what about the United States and their history of slavery, or a politician accused of lying who says what about my political foe who told a bigger lie. The US’s history of slavery has no bearing on the other nation’s human rights violations, and one politician’s lies can’t be used to justify the other politician’s lies.

The best way to counter this fallacy is to simply recognize that two wrongs don’t cancel each other out. Just because one wrong exists doesn’t mean another one is justified. Shayla should point out to Dan that other people driving dangerously or stealing have absolutely nothing to do with whether he does those things or not. It’s still wrong. And the dad could certainly tell his son “Yes, I did ditch class, and I failed my sophomore year and had to take summer classes so I could graduate. I don’t want that to happen to you, so I’m telling you to go to class.” And a smart journalist would see the fallacy in the politician’s deflection of their own lies by pointing out someone else’s lies by saying, “That may be, but we’re not talking about that right now. Let’s talk about what you said that turned out not to be the case.”

So, I hope you can see that two wrongs DO NOT make a right. But on the subject of driving, it is true that three rights make a left. 

Closing Thoughts

Host: And there you have it—three common fallacies that can trip us up in discussions:

1. The Straw Man Fallacy misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack.
2. Begging the Question assumes what it’s trying to prove, leading to circular reasoning.
3. Two Wrongs Make a Right justifies wrongdoing by pointing to another wrong.

Remember that these are just three of a much larger number of relevance fallacies. Philosophy professor Matthew van Cleave, author of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, says that these kinds of fallacies can be very compelling psychologically, but that it is important to distinguish between psychologically compelling but fallacious arguments on the one hand, and rationally compelling, logical arguments on the other hand. Because the evidence presented in relevance fallacies is, well, irrelevant, they fail to be rationally compelling. By recognizing and avoiding these kinds of logical pitfalls, we can have more thoughtful and productive conversations. 

Thanks for tuning in to Think It Through: The Clearer Thinking Podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe and share it with a friend. Oh, and check out the show notes if you want to delve deeper into today’s topic. And remember—clear thinking leads to better decisions. So next time you’re in a debate—whether it’s online, at work, or around the dinner table— I hope you take a moment before responding and use the information in this episode to think it through.