The logical fallacy is kind of a false statement which is used in an argument to achieve multiple outcomes (Elqayam). It is used to deviate the argument by using wrong evidences, personal attacks, misuse of language and diverting from the central argument of the discussion (Christoforides et al.). There are multiple fallacies that are used out of which some are experienced at the individual level. The aim of the paper is elaborate one such personal experience when I was being persuaded by one of these fallacies.
The debate that was organized by the college debating society and the topic was the debate was “science and philosophy: complementary or contradictory:” When the discussion was gaining strong ground, I realized that my fellow participants were trying to persuade my understanding by using the logical fallacy of “ad hominem” (Hitchcock). This is defined as the use of abusive language, personal attack to the debater and name calling. They tried to persuade me by making personal statement and questioning my academic background for failing to understand the scientific knowledge’s. Even though there was persuasion for changing statements due to my philosophical background, I remained firm in my logic and proceeded with the debate.
However, there was fewer other attempts by other debaters to use logical fallacy like hasty generalization. This is defined as the faulty generalization supported by lack of data and statistics (Pirie). I realized this was a way to weaken the opponent’s argument by bringing hasty generalization and deviating the speaker from the central argument. Statements were raised that students of the humanities background do not have any knowledge about science which is not true in real situations. People from all backgrounds do have basic knowledge about other fields even if not technical and factual knowledge. This attempt to persuade failed as well. By claiming to have more knowledge do not necessarily prove that they have practical knowledge. It is a general fallacy that is used in multiple scenarios to win an argument. However, it is important for the speaker to have detailed understanding of the fallacies that can be used in a discussion.
The final situation was that the fellow debaters tried to persuade me by the “stack the deck” method (Elqayam). This is one of the logical fallacies that are used by most of the good debaters. It is the process of stacking up of data to counter the opponent’s argument by proving that they have better factual and theoretical knowledge of the matter. This is one of the fallacies that persuaded me and I failed to put my argument on the table. This fallacy was used tactfully which gave me a feeling that I lack proper factual knowledge about the subject hence it is wise to keep quite. This is the most common logical fallacy used by the experienced debaters as it offers them the opportunity to stage their claim and make them look very knowledgeable.
From my personal
experience, I realized that I failed to restrict myself from being persuaded by
the usage of these logical fallacies. It did work in my case as I was not aware
of the ways to counter the argument. However, this is indeed a learning
experience for me and it also gave me an overall understanding of the issue of
logical fallacies and their use in the practical argument.
References
Christoforides, Michael, George Spanoudis, and Andreas Demetriou. “Coping with logical fallacies: A developmental training program for learning to reason.” Child development87.6 2016: 1856-1876.
Elqayam, Shira. “The new paradigm in psychology of reasoning.” International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Routledge, 2017. 152-172.
Hitchcock, David. “Is There an Argumentum ad Hominem Fallacy?.” On Reasoning and Argument. Springer, Cham, 2017. 409-419.
Pirie, Madsen. How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.
