Friday, March 24, 2017

Logical Fallacies in News

When it comes to news and politics, most of what you hear during the elections and debates are the competitors attacking each other to get their point across. This is called "Ad Hominem", a logical fallacy that means attacking an opponent's character or personal traits in order to invalidate their arguments. What is a logical fallacy, you ask? Logical fallacies are "errors in reasoning that render an argument invalid." 

There are many examples in the news where ad hominem comes into play. This article on President Trump from USA Today is one them. During the campaign, Trump pretty much always let his opinions known about his opponent, Clinton's, character. 




Ad hominem is not the only logical fallacy you see in the news and politics. When someone answers a criticism with criticism, it is called the "Tu Quoque" fallacy. This fallacy can also be found in the news, but of course mostly in politics. It is more specific than ad hominem, therefore harder to find. However, an article on Forbes' website provides a perfect example. 

Although the article is an opinion article, it still sums up tu qouque in an interesting way. It says, 
"It is entirely true that "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy, it being a specific case of the ad hominem one. The truth or not of something is not dependent upon who says it nor either what they've said nor how they've acted in the past. Yet while it's a logical error, in that it doesn't invalidate the argument being put forward, it's still a very useful technique. For if "you do it too" is indeed a truth then we can weigh what it is that we're being told to do more carefully."
This is a good way, I believe, to put the fallacy in perspective.

Why do peoples logical fallacies? That is a question that will probably never have an answer. All i can say is, when people feel as if they are being attacked, they get defensive and attack back. These fallacies will always be used in politics and sometimes even entertainment.

3 comments:

  1. Meliee,

    This is a good post. I really like your description of your fallacy and the example that you used for it. Keep writing!

    Natalie Hunter

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you're on to something here. You present two different fallacies, ad hominem and tu quoque. I wonder if you can expand on the first one, especially after the video? Can you *prove* the fallacy? That is, what is the reality of Clinton's political behavior? Depending on which side of the aisle (if any) you belong to, your use of examples will vary, but this will be a really great, investigative post of what's said versus what's the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the introduction, it makes you think. Great jobs for using two different examples. I also liked the way you ended your blog. This blog is very well put together!

    ReplyDelete