SECTION FOUR:.REASON

I think that often times at SLUH, or anywhere, we find ourselves committing the five common thinking errors presented to us in this chapter, which are:1. Non Sequiturs-a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise that supports it. 2. False and Vague premises- when the conclusion is logical, but the premises are not logical. 3. Ad Hominem- attacking the other person, instead of respecting his or her argument. 4. Begging the question- assuming your argument is true without supporting it with evidence. 5. Red Herrings- A point made during a discussion or argument that is unrelated to the topic at hand, and is designed to distract those listening to the argument or discussion.

I have chosen to list examples of these errors from my experiences or those of my friends that may help readers to understand how the thinking errors work.

1.Non SequitursNon Sequiturs-Often times when I find myself in an argument with my friends at the lunch table we say things such as if you play football, then you're a meathead, or if you play soccer then you're weak. These are obviously not true, as there are plenty of smart people who play football, and plenty of tough people who play soccer. So when we say if then statements without facts, we tend to generalize and be biased and we commit a non sequitur.

2. False and Vague Premises- These too show up often in arguments. An example would be, when arguing with a friend,. he says, Everyone in my advanced math class is smarter than you, I’m in my advanced math class, so I'm smarter than you. In this argument the conclusion is logical, however the premise is not necessarily true, and therefore your friend has committed the 2nd thinking error. Though he is in the math class, everyone in the class may not be smarter than you.

3. Ad Hominem- The Ad Hominem shows up frequently in arguments and is used primarily when one is angry with his/her friend and lashes out not against there argument, but against them. An example would be is you are speaking with a friend and say, "Mortal Kombat for the sega genesis is the best game ever", they say, "Mortal Kombat sucks," and you respond, "you know what, you suck" Here both of you have committed this thinking flaw because no one has presented any evidence on whether Mortal Kombat is a good or bad game, rather you have verbally attacked one an others ideas.

4.Begging the question -These arguments often show up when people make claims that they have no evidence for. For example one may say, "English class is the best class because I like it." then someone else asks them, "Why do you like it?" and they respond, "Because it's the best class." Here they have done nothing to back up their claim that English class is the best class, they have merely restated their claim to defend it.

5. Red Herrings- This argument is often used when someone knows they are wrong or that they have no evidence to defend their point, so they bring up something completely different to distract those listening to them. For example, if you're arguing about whether Landon Donovan is overrated or not, and you know you're losing the argument, so you say, "Well, we know David Beckham is the best player in the MLS." This is not related to the prior argument, and is only a red herring brought end the argument without admitting you are wrong.

back to home page

<