Argumentum

Some time back I attended a lecture on critical reasoning. And I was amazed to find that our entire life is based on arguments. We put forth our arguments based on certain premises, under some assumptions. We then try to infer something. In the process we make judgements and state some facts.

If I say "I love her", it may be the argument I am stating. It may be based on the premise that "I am physically attracted to her" and under the assumption that "If I am physically attracted to someone then that means I love her." When we try to critically reason out our arguments then we may be able to find meaning in a lot of things that we say.

But what really caught my attention was fallacies associated with these arguments.

Now if someone else also says, "I love her too" and I reply, "How can you tell that, you are a big idiot and not the right person for her", then my argument is again a fallacy. I am attacking the person rather than the argument. Its Argumentum ad Hominem - It takes the form of attacking the character of the person to reject an argument, rather than attacking the argument itself.

If I say "I need to have a girlfriend because everyone in the world has one", then thats again a fallacy. Its called Argumentum ad Populum - It states that an argument is valid simply because a suitably large number of people think it is true, or approve of it.

If I change my argument again and tell, " I need to have a girlfriend because my friend (who is a very famous person by the way) says thats its the 'in' thing these days". Then thats again a fallacy. I am basing my argument on some famous person's opinion. Its Argumentum ad verecundiam - It states that an argument is valid simply because its supportedby some prestigious people who cannot be wrong even if they do not hold any expertise in that particular area.

Now let us move on a bit further. It I state, "She just smiled at me, I think she loves me." Then its a fallacy. I am assuming that she has fallen in love with me just because she smiled at me even though there may not be a link between the two. Its Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc - It assumes that if one event occurs prior to another, the former must be the cause of the latter, even though no casual link is established between the two.

Then if I say, " I think I have fallen in love, maybe thats because I have nothing better to do " . Thats a red-herring. I have introduced something thats irrelevant to the main argument. And its red herrings that divert people's focus away from the original issue.

Identify the fallacies in your arguments and many things will fall in place!