Oh man, time
for everyone’s favorite topic: logical fallacies! Journey with me once again, dear reader, to
the early 2000s, where I was dutifully attending a majority of my undergrad
classes and had found myself taking a semester of Logic in pursuit of my
philosophy minor. We started the course
with the good stuff: logical fallacies.
Within 2 days of the course, I suddenly felt as though I had become the
conversational equivalent of Neo in the Matrix (remember, once again, that this
was the early 2000s, so that reference wasn’t dated then). There I was, able to call these all out the
moment I saw them. Strawman, boom! Red Herring, KAPOW! And of course, ad hominem ad hominem
ad hominem! Oh you suckers are screwed
now…until I noticed that no one gave a damn about these fallacies. Either they argued that they had not committed
them, or they disregarded them entirely.
What gives? Why was no one
relenting to my skill? Because in the
real world, during a real conversation, an argument being logical is only PART
of the equation. The real world isn’t
purely logical: it’s empirical, and, in turn, experience, expertise and
observable qualities DO matter. Knowing
this, here is what I’ve come to say: ad hominem? You’re goddamn right ad hominem: who are YOU
to make this argument?
And never accuse a misanthrope of ad-hominem and expect it to matter
When you
share your opinion on something, YOU come under the spotlight AS the opinion
sharer. That’s simply how a dialogue
exists. That this is somehow shocking to
some folks is a reflection of the falsely perceived anonymity that social media
and forums and the internet have granted to us as a population. People want to trick themselves into believe
that all voices are of equal weight, and it’s merely the content of the message
that is of any concern, and this is patent absurdity. Examples?
Why not combat absurdity WITH some absurdity. Say you are presenting zero symptoms of any
diseases, and then a random individual says “I think you are in the early
stages of cancer. Some cancer do not
present until later.” Would you take
them equally at their word, compared to if these same words came from an
oncologist? No? But it’s the same argument! How ad hominem of you! How dare you hold that person’s lacking credentials
as reason to not give their words any weight.
Why…why you siding with the oncologist is merely an appeal to
authority! Not logical in the slightest,
my friend.
Because
logic isn’t the only thing that matters!
Not in an illogical world. Not in
a world where we AREN’T the experts. And
when you delude yourself into perceiving that you ARE one, logic can cripple
you, because your “logical” arguments are based off of false pretenses in the
first place. If you sat in on my Logic
course with me, you woulda heard the same thing: the pretenses MUST be true
when constructing a logical argument.
Otherwise, you end up with arguments that are logically sound but
factually untrue: of benefit to no one.
That’s why, when you skim the abstract of a few studies and then get
into a 400 post long internet shouting match screaming “Ad hominem!” every time
someone calls you stupid and unaccomplished, you end up setting yourself up for
failure. You HAVE to acknowledge your
own shortcomings, limitations and misunderstandings, and many times this means
applying the old “appeal to authority”.
This guy should have appealed to more authorities...
There’s a
goddamn reason these people ARE the authority to appeal to! We MADE them authorities because they tend to
be right on the subjects FAR more often than they are wrong! That’s what you do in a society: you make
experts so that everyone doesn’t have to know everything. Without having experts TO appeal to, society would
crumble, because there simply isn’t enough time to learn everything about everything. Think how long it takes to become a
doctor. “But doctors are wrong sometimes”,
yeah, when you push them OUT of the realm of their expertise, but that’s the
point: stay in your lane. People would
rather not vaccinate their kids because they heard from Jenny McCarthy that it
causes autism rather than trust the collective medical knowledge of the entire
Western hemisphere over the span of many decades? What madness is this?! The same madness that prompts people to roll
the dice and trust random internet youtube sensations on how they should lift
weights simply because they have an Instagram account versus listening to the
collective wisdom of thousands of successful trainees and high level coaches
that have accomplished things of note.
And THAT is
why you get challenged when you present an idea. ARE you the expert? No?
Have you accomplished anything?
No? Have you TRAINED anyone to
accomplish anything? No. So then why do I listen to you? “BECAUSE IT’S ILLOGICAL NOT TO!” Great: I guess I’m choosing to be
illogical. Because I’d rather be
illogical and strong than logical and weak.
And I don’t care if you’re parroting the experts, because if you don’t
have the requisite education to even be able to understand what they are
saying, there’s a significant chance you’re misinterpreting or misapplying what
they’ve written. So then I get to ask:
what are your credentials to read and APPLY what the experts say? F**k me man, I’ll even take an undergrad
degree in SOMETHING exercise related, as it’ll hopefully show that you have AN
understanding of how to read and interpret the science in these studies. But man, if you’re a poli-sci scrub like me,
the jig is up, because I know EXACTLY what you don’t know.
However, my philosophy background has helped quite a bit with my training
Put yourself
in a position where you CAN’T be ad hominem’d.
BE credible, BE accomplish, BE worthwhile…or just be quiet. And hey, there’s nothing wrong with sharing
your opinion when asked, but remember our previous talks on the signal-to-noise
ratio: ask yourself, what is the value of my contribution to this topic? Does my opinion NEED to be heard? Does it DESERVE to be heard? Have I done enough, seen enough, learned
enough, that I actually matter? Or am I
just talking just to hear myself talk?
Because, if it’s the latter, you could always just go write in a blog.