Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by,  or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity.

So if you’re saying, “I’m a creationist”, you’re not just saying, “I favor the arguments for creation”, you’re saying, “I, as a person, my identity is as a creationist”. So if you’re attacking creationist claims, you’re attacking that person as well, their self-identity. So how do you challenge the beliefs, but don’t threaten them on a personal level?

40:14 Geoffrey Monroe did a study that is very sobering, because what he found was that, his particular study used stimuli that had to do with things like homosexuality and mental illness. He had people who thought homosexuality and mental illness were the same thing, and he had people who had the view that there’s no connection. Then he presented them both with statements that confirmed or disconfirmed that.

What he found was disturbing. People who’s views were challenged by this evidence, so believed disconfirming information, so if I thought that homosexuals have higher rates of mental illness, then I read a scientific article that said the opposite, those people tended to devalue science itself. That is, they rated lower the ability of science to answer questions like that, even beyond that, that it generalized to other issues other than the one that was challenged.

So it wasn’t even just, “this is a bad study”, or “I disagree with the conclusions” it was that “science itself cannot answer a question like this”. They become almost postmodernist. They would say, “well, you can have your science, but that doesn’t answer these questions.”

People at my university usually reserve two areas where “science can’t touch this”: religion and things like love or sexuality. They say, “Yes, you can have your data but these things are immune to faith or the wonders of the emotions, but science can’t address that.”

It seems also that a lot of pseudo-sciences tend to cluster together. You’re going to hear on a christian radio network, typically, obviously creationist stuff, but climate denialism comes in there, a lot of times there’s a lot of pseudo-science-y herbal remedies that you’ll hear late night on the christian talk shows.

It does seem to be that once you distrust one area of science, it’s not all that hard to start being more skeptical of others.

42:07 It spreads. So, what Monroe’s work is suggesting is the reason that happens is the person has some sort of cognitive dissonance. “My view is apparently disconfirmed by this study, so therefore this study cannot be valid, and studies in general probably aren’t valid.” They bring out things like, “even scientists disagree” or “facts can be twisted”.

What Monroe’s broader point to the debate of how information is presented is that often you can change that, or you can blunt that response by packaging the information in a less threatening way. That is, if somebody’s emotional factors are involved in this, if they are hurt, or if their worldview is challenged, if you present the information in a way that allows them to maintain part of their worldview, they are less likely to have that compensatory defensive response.

His argument is that you can use language that is relatively more accommodating. Like instead of saying, “we argue” that you instead frame it as, “here’s what the data says”. Or that you allow them to affirm part of their identity in another area.

So the way that some of these studies work is, let’s say you’re studying group boundaries like nationalism or patriotism. If you present the information like, write an essay on things that are good about America, and then present them with information that might be challenging, like slavery or something like that, then the person is more likely to accept that information because they’ve had the chance to affirm their broader values in a different context.

If I’m somewhere talking to a christian face to face, and we’re getting into a theological debate, I found myself instinctively but then later deliberately using a lot of morally loaded terms when talking to them. Instead of just saying, “you’re wrong on this position, that’s not the most valid argument”, you say things like, “well, I know you believe in integrity, I know you believe in worshiping god with all your heart soul,  and mind. I think integrity requires us to use the same standards to judge our own arguments that we would others.” Now what that’s doing, I’m still making a critique of their position, but I’m affirming some part of their moral identity. I’m not attacking them, “you’re a bad, ignorant person”, I’m saying “you’re a person who wants to live a life of integrity. Here’s an opportunity to have more intellectual integrity.”

45:05 The evidence suggests that if you frame a response within the person’s own worldview as much as possible, that it’s less likely to be alien to them and they can just dismiss it. For example, about the environmental movement becoming more christianized, or rather that the christian left movement, that if you package things in terminology like “creation carer” or “global warming stewardship”, that the persons are more likely to receive that rather than deny that.

The point is that if you frame an issue that is less likely to be threatening, or if you allow the person to affirm other things, like “religion is really great for you, it sounds like it’s done great things, but”, then that makes the person less likely to have a defensive response where they just say “No, I’m not going to listen”

45:54 So the question is, can we do this in a way that preserves our intellectual integrity? Do we have to lie to them, and coddle them and say, “oh this is really great” when we don’t think it is? Or can we frame things and still preserve our own beliefs?

~What follows is the RD guys hashing out their ideas and thoughts, which are interesting. They don’t really agree that it’s a good way to handle arguments with religious people, but have a listen for yourself to get their full thoughts.

What do you think? I want to mull it over some more, but I think affirming someone’s moral identity, appealing to their sense of integrity, would be a good way to go, to not alienate them. But I agree with the guys that winning a tiny little battle isn’t really that satisfying. Although part of me thinks it might help, another part thinks it might be harmful, as the guys mention how people mix pseud0-science with real science readily, which isn’t acceptable. I also don’t believe that science and religion can mix.

It’s a delicate issue. I look forward to hearing what you think about it, if you care to chime in.

Related posts

• Why People Defend Their Dogma (5)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• More Groovy Science 5 (6)
• God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up (3)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)

If someone wants to proseletyze, what is a good, quick response to let them know they are dealing with a godless heathen who is a lost cause?

Please comment with your suggestions. Then I’ll do another post with a nice neat list we can keep nearby for when someone wants to “tell us the good news”.

Related posts

• Are You Rapture Ready? (10)
• Skeptics Can Be Funny Too (5)
• New Mr. Deity and Some Other Godless Entertainment (0)
• Holy Jesus In A Little Plastic Cup! How Convenient! (48)
• De-Christianizing (22)

The term comes from fox hunting. They used smoked red herrings dragged across the path of the fox to distract the hounds from the fox’s trail.

This is Part 7 in a series about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Types of Red Herring Fallacies: (from Wikipedia’s list)

• Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument.
• Argumentum ad baculum: Appeal to Force, Appeal to the Stick: threats or coercion towards the opposing party.
• Argumentum ad populum: Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to the People: It’s true simply because so many people believe it.
• Association Fallacy: guilt by association
• Appeal to Authority: It’s true because the person asserting it is in a position of authority.
• Appeal to Emotion: An argument is made to manipulate the emotions instead of valid reasoning.
  • Appeal to Consequences: It’s true or false based on whether the premise leads to either good or bad consequences for someone.
  • Appeal to Fear: An argument is made to increase fear or prejudice towards the opposition.
  • Wishful Thinking: A decision is made based on an what would be pleasant to imagine, rather than evidence or reason.
  • Appeal to Spite: An argument is made to exploit peoples’ bitterness or spite towards the opposition.
  • Appeal to Flattery: An argument is made using flattery to gather support.
• Appeal to Motive: A premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of the proposer.
• Appeal to Novelty: A proposal is superior or better simply because it’s new or modern.
• Appeal to Poverty: Argumentum ad lazarum: The conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor, or incorrect because the speaker is wealthy.
• Appeal to Wealth: Argumentum ad crumenam: A statement is coreect because the speaker is rich, or incorrect because the speaker is poor.
• Argument from Silence: Argumentum ex silentio: A conclusion is based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
• Appeal to Tradition: It’s correct because it has a long standing tradition behind it.
• Chronological Snobbery: It’s wrong because the idea was held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
• Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based solely on someone’s or something’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. Typically transfers positive or negative esteem from the earlier context, instead of finding difference in the present situation.
• Judgmental Language: Insulting, compromising, or disparaging language used to influence the recipient’s judgment.
• Poisoning the Well: Adverse information is given about the target pre-emptively to the audience, to discredit or ridicule everything the target person is about to say.
• Sentimental Fallacy: It would be more pleasant if, therefore it ought to be, therefore it is.
• Straw Man Argument: Misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
• Style Over Substance: Emphasizing the way an argument is presented while ignoring or marginalizing the content of the argument.
• Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning.
• Two Wrongs Make a Right: It’s assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
• Tu quoque: You Too: You justify your wrong action because someone else does it.

Examples:

First, I’m having trouble coming up with examples. My husband Butch and I played Pente this evening and it took us forever to think up 3 examples for you while we were playing. So, after this logical fallacy, I’m turning the tables back on you and you will get to help me! But for now, here are our lame examples:

• Jim comes home over an hour late. Sally says, “I was worried. Why are you late? Why didn’t you call?” Jim replies, “Have you seen the weather lately?” He doesn’t answer her directly. He brings up a whole separate issue meant to distract her from finding out the truth, which is that he’s a cheating SOB who is sleeping with his boss’s secretary. See, it doesn’t have anything to do with the weather, but poor Sally didn’t check so she just drops the subject, even though deep down, she knows something is wrong. Sigh… if only her best friend Jill would tell her the truth. See, Jill knows Jim is a creep because Jill works at the same office for a different boss. But Jill wants to stay out of it because she’s married to Bob, whom she stole from Sally back in college! So she knows that relationship issues are really sensitive with poor Sally, who has never forgiven her. Because Bob is quite a catch and Jim is a jerk! Oh.. where did THAT come from!? LOL
• Butch says, “The new Alpha Romeo is coming to the U.S.” and Neece says, “Yeah, but what about the Smart Car? I hear it gets great gas mileage.” Neece hates the new Alpha Romeo (okay, that’s not true, I don’t know a thing about it) but she secretly (ok, it’s not a secret, I really do want one and Butch knows it) wants Butch to buy her a Smart Car, so she plays the Red Herring, distracting Butch from his train of thought onto a similar path which is what she’s interested in, the Smart Car.
  • NOTE: if you can make the scent of your red herring similar to the original argument, it’s much easier to trick your opponent onto the new path you want them to follow. So be aware of that!
• At Thanksgiving dinner Butch says, “There are no gods.” while passing the mashed potatoes to a bible thumper (his aunt’s mother – she’s a fundamentalist methodist of some sort). She turns beat red and shouts, “Yeah? Well how do you explain the human SOUL? Only GOD can give the spark of life!” Everyone at the table groans awkwardly as Butch goes into a lecture on science and evidence, and the bible thumper turns purple and starts throwing mashed potatoes at him while screaming bible verses. Ah, another festive holiday with Butch’s family! LOL

Wow, sorry, I have no idea where that dreck came from, LOL! In the future, you can help me with examples in the comments. I’m sure they will come to all of us much more easily than to me, alone, in the middle of the night!

Ok! So how do you refute a Red Herring Fallacy? Good question. Since there are so many, we need to come up with a general rebuttal that we can use. Then when we deal with each of the specific types of arguments, we can find more direct counter measures.

First, identify that someone has whipped out a stinky red herring argument. I think the first plan of attack is always to catch the fallacy and tell the person that you’ve caught it. So, you could say, “That’s a red herring. Stick to the argument at hand.” In other words, direct the person back to the original argument with a verbal correction. This might be a good time to remind them of what the original argument or question is.

In our first example, Sally wants to know why Jim didn’t at least call to let her know he’d be late. He starts talking about the weather. Sally needs to redirect the conversation back to the original argument and ignore the red herring. “Never mind the weather, please answer the question, Jim. Why didn’t you at least call and let me know you were going to be so late?” Now, of course, Jim will have to quickly come up with a lie and apologize. It’s not the ideal situation, but at least Sally didn’t get derailed by talk of the weather!

In the second example, Butch would reply to Neece’s Smart car red herring with, “I know you want a Smart Car and I will buy you one for your birthday. But I am talking about the  Alpha Romeo. I wanted to tell you about it because I think you’ll really love it. It’s got… yadda yadda yadda.. numbers, boring stats on engine size and suspension configuration or other such nonsense… blah blah blah..”

Anyway, I think the idea here is to identify the Red Herring then restate the original argument or question to get back on track.

Ok, obviously I’m trying to have fun with this. Here’s your homework. If you think of any red herring examples that you’ve had cross your path, or if you have a great way to get things back on track once a Red Herring is thrown out in an argument, please comment! Together we can come up with better examples and solutions than I can come up with alone.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

• Wikipedia
• Logical Fallacies.info

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacies in Advertising (4)
• Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too) (8)
• Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack (4)
• Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man (4)
• Logical Fallacies (0)

This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”

This is Part 6 in a series I introduced awhile ago about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacies. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

This one doesn’t need examples because it’s pretty easy to spot. If someone goes on for ages, throwing out tons of obscure, random bits of information, you have yourself an argumentum verbosium. Some of the information may seem plausible, it may all sound well-researched, but there’s just no way to check all the supposed facts.

You’ll often run into this logical fallacy with con men in the pseudo-science game, and with conspiracy theorists. If you’ve experienced it elsewhere, let us know.

So how do you refute the Proof by Verbosity? Good question. Again, this is my opinion. I’ve yet to find a resource that teaches how to deal with logical fallacies.

First, how are you hearing this argument? If it’s on TV on an infomercial, your best bet is to change the channel after you realize the con man arguing by verbosity. If you are at a talk given by such a person, again, I’d probably leave.

If, on the other hand, this is someone you know and they are starting another rant filled with obscure “facts”, you could try this:

• Call them on their nonsense. Tell them they are arguing with verbosity, which is a bullying technique used by con men.
• When that doesn’t work, try to get a word in to say you would like to see them take 20 random facts they’ve pulled out of their hat and give you concrete scientific evidence for each one. The evidence must be peer reviewed and widely accepted. Then you might consider letting them talk about this subject again. (Change the number of facts based on their levels of BS. If you need to make it 50, go ahead!)
• Threaten to walk away each time they start talking about their subject. Then follow through.

I’m not sure there is any way to get through to someone who is a conspiracy theorist. They are like fundamentalists. They truly believe what they are telling you. I also don’t think there’s any way to get through to a con artist who is trying to get you to buy his product. He will resist at all costs. So my cynical and jaded way to deal with such people is to turn them in to the Better Business Bureau or some such organization, and then to avoid them.

I’m open to suggestions though. Please feel free to comment with suggestions for how to deal with this type of argument. Also let me know if you have a specific logical fallacy that you’d like to see addressed.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

• Wikipedia
• Skeptoid

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (3)
• Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too) (8)
• Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack (4)
• Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man (4)
• Logical Fallacies (0)

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority.

Examples:
Chinese medicine is valid because it’s been around for centuries and is based on ancient Chinese knowledge.

Oprah says that The Secret is a powerful book, and that it really works. And we all know that Oprah is an expert on everything and only supports stuff that works perfectly.

The Pope says the basic idea of evolution is OK because that’s how God made everything, and the Pope is the supreme expert on all things that have anything to do with god.

Linus Pauling said that taking mega doses of vitamins can lead to all kinds of wonderful health benefits and prevent illness. He was awarded 2 Nobel Prizes on other subjects.

UFOs exist because airline pilots are trained observers and reliable eye witnesses, and are trained to stay calm in an emergency. and they claim to have seen them.

So how do you refute the Appeal to Authority? This one is a bit tougher. Again, this is my opinion because I haven’t found any resources on that yet.

• First, I would start by telling the person that they are using the Argument From Authority and explain what that is.
• Second, ask for evidence for the claim. Do they have anything to back it up? Where can you find the research and look into it?
• If the person doesn’t have anything to back up the claim, and it’s a point of contention that you would really like to clear up, ask for whatever information they have and offer to do the research yourself.

Here is a real example:

My mother is on hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Her doctor is giving her a really hard time and telling her she needs to get off of it as fast as she can and that it’s really bad for her to take it. She has lowered my mother’s dose to a point where my mother has hot flashes, trouble sleeping, and is generally rather irritated and cranky. It’s unpleasant for her (and those around her).

The doctor, who represents a person of authority to my mother, is basing this drastic and uncomfortable change to my mother’s well-being on ONE study done several years ago that was widely publicized and created a huge scare. I won’t go into the details, but basically the study found that a certain demographic of women fitting very specific criteria were at risk if they were on hormone therapy.

The media ran with it, gave it full authority and dramatized the results to include all women taking any kind of HRT. Many doctors, including my mother’s, simply followed the media and the overview of the one study, gave it full authority, and never did any research into the study itself to find out the real results.

To make matters worse, my mother is looking into alternative health products and is cutting her already small dose of real HRT in half because she’s afraid of it killing her, making her even more miserable. The alternative products have no scientific basis that they work at all, are terribly expensive, and are based on the claims of movie stars and people like Oprah, who are most likely compensated. The only thing that people are given by these big name stars is anecdotal stories and pseudo-scientific claims that are carefully worded to sound like real science but still sneak past the FDA. Insidious.

But the my mother’s doctor is the voice of authority here, and that doctor is basing her authority on the authority of the study. I’m just the daughter, so my mother holds no credence in what I say even though I’ve looked into the matter and discovered that there is no reason for her to worry because she’s not in the demographic of possible risk, based on the actual study’s results and not just the media scare.

For this lesson, I’m using 3 resources:

• The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe
• The New England Skeptical Society
• Skeptoid

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation (7)
• Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (3)
• Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too) (8)
• Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack (4)
• Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man (4)

This is Part 4 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”

Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you.

Edit: I found this video today. Here is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining it:

Example: You: The Big Bang is so amazing. It all seems so lucky that life arose through chance and happenstance and evolution in the primordial goo.
Opponent: Too amazing. I can’t see how such a thing could happen. Therefore god did it. That’s the only explanation that gives me all the answers.

Example: We know so little about the human brain. We can’t prove that ESP doesn’t exist, therefore it is real.

Example: Those funny lights in the sky don’t look like anything I can recognize as a plane or helicopter, therefore it’s an alien spacecraft.

This logical fallacy is quite common, in my experience. Now, how do you refute it?

• First, tell your opponent that he or she has committed a logical fallacy. I find that this is a good way to start, by stating the logical error.
• Second, tell them the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So claiming something such as ESP, an invisible man in the sky or alien visitation all require real evidence that can be proven and replicated and follow all the rules of good scientific research. The scientific research and math has been done over and over and validated regarding the Big Bang. That’s pretty much well established. And the way it works, too, for such things, is that they are still working on the Big Bang. That’s real science for you. That’s how it really works.
• Third, I think I’d mention that science never gives up, never stops searching for answers and even more questions. Whereas creationism and believing in fairy tales just gives up at the first step, as soon as thinking is required.

For this lesson, I’m using 4 resources:

• The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe
• The New England Skeptical Society
• Skeptoid
• Wikipedia

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacies (0)
• Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation (7)
• Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too) (8)
• Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack (4)
• Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man (4)

This is Part 3 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?) I replied that it would be unethical to take advantage of people who are weak and can’t think for themselves. She said the churches do it all the time, so why shouldn’t I. I told her that sometimes you have to do the right thing just because it’s right. I couldn’t remember the Latin name for the fallacy, but I did note that two wrongs don’t make a right, as people who use this logical fallacy try to assume. (I won’t even go into how weird that whole conversation was. I mean, seriously!)

A lot of times people who are into alternative health modalities will use this argument. They’ll say that even though their therapies may lack evidence, some mainstream modalities also lack evidence.

How do you refute such an argument? Well, I think it’s rather straightforward.

When someone suggests that 2 wrongs make a right, such as the example given by my mother up above, simply call them on it. Two wrongs DON’T make a right.

If you have anything more to add, please feel free. If I think of anything else to help us deal with the Tu quoque fallacy, I’ll be sure to let you know.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

• The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe
• The New England Skeptical Society

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring (11)
• Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation (7)
• Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (3)
• Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack (4)
• Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man (4)