Hey hey everyone welcome back! Let’s start today’s episode with a quick review. I want to review the Red Herring fallacy. A Red Herring fallacy happens when someone goes off topic and introduces something completely irrelevant into the conversation or argument. It’s a way of avoiding the question and creating a distraction so that they don’t have to actually address the original argument.
The question you can ask yourself to determine if someone is committing a Red Herring fallacy: “Is that really the argument that is being made here or am I being distracted from the real question?”
If you want to hear more about this fallacy, check out Episode 9.
Ok, let’s dive into the new fallacy for today, and that’s Circular Reasoning. Circular reasoning says that A is true b/c B is true, and B is true b/c A is true.
For example: “Using logic is important b/c it’s important to use logic!” Ha! See what I did there? That’s circular reasoning.
Here’s a few more easy examples:
“Comedies are funny because they make you laugh”
“Go to bed” Why? “B/c it’s bedtime”
Or how about this example from a commercial. There’s a famous candy bar commercial that says, “You’re not you when you’re hungry”. There’s a bunch of versions of this commercial, but the basic gist is showing someone as a different, slower, more lethargic person until they eat the candy bar, then they’re back to themselves. But they offer zero proof that eating their candy bar, or sugar, or chocolate has any effect on someone “being themselves”. They just say that you’ll get back to being “you”.
Circular reasoning is also sometimes called Begging the Question. The problem in this fallacy is that the arguer begins with the point they’re trying to prove and wants you to believe it without actually providing any additional proof. Their argument just goes around and around in a circle with no actual support for the argument. There is no reason given to believe what they’re saying. Both sides of the argument are making the same point.
This is why the Washington Post can’t say something is true just b/c the Washington Post printed an article saying it was true…although that kind of thing happens all the time in the news. There has to be outside support or documentation to support the claim.
Here’s what I mean by bringing in another point of support: If I were to say, “Drugs cause brain damage because they destroy your mind”, those are both true statements, but it’s circular b/c they’re both basically saying the same thing. However, if I introduce another proof, it breaks the cycle of circular reasoning. So I could say, Drugs cause brain damage because they kill 5 million brain cells per second and make you lose your sense of fashion.(it’s a made up example, ok?) That would be providing outside proof and not just going around in circles.
Here’s a question to ask yourself if you’re faced with Circular Reasoning: “Is that really a good reason to believe this argument or is it just restating the original argument?”… *repeat*
Up next: Equivocation
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
