Logical Fallacy can be defined as in normal life when two people are arguing with each other on a topic, they often try to win the debate and make the other Unanswerable. For this, some people resort to different logical assumptions to make their opponents unanswerable. Being a learner of philosophy but I will still try to tell you about these Logical arguments in turn.
The first of these logical assumptions is called the Strawman Logical Fallacy. In this logical delusion, it happens that you make a claim ‘and your opponent rejects something similar to your claim instead of rejecting your claim and gives the impression that he has rejected your claim indirectly.
Example No. 1
First-person: Islam is a religion of peace.
Second person: You see Islamic countries, there is the most unrest, so how can Islam be a religion of peace?
Now the other person here had to offer some of the Islamic teachings to refute the first person’s claim that it is against peace but instead tried to prove from the unrest of some Islamic countries that Islam is not a religion of peace. However, the first person did not claim that all Islamic countries are peaceful.
2 Example No. 2
First-person: Evolution can never make a fish a frog.
Second person: If the theory of evolution were wrong, antibiotic resistance could never be created within bacteria. Because bacteria can change inside, fish can become frogs.
Now the other person here has planned for himself to be the first person that the species does not change. Then he began to prove that if the species changes, it means that evolution is right. Although The first person did not claim at all that species could not change. This meant that species changed, but these changes did not make anything else.
Red Herring Fallacy
Some people often use this logical excuse during the debate. In this logical fallacy, someone deviates from the original subject during the discussion and teases another controversial topic which leads to the debate.
Example No. 1
Teacher: You’re caught copying, you know how bad it is. I cancel your paper.
Student: Sir, I know I made a mistake, but think of my parents. If my paper is canceled, my parents’ hearts will be broken.
In this example, the student beautifully diverted the teacher’s attention from copying and drew attention to the condition of the parents.
Example No. 2
First-person: How can macroevolution be called a fact while according to the scientific method there are no observations and experiments in this regard?
Second person: So what experiences and observations are possible regarding the Big Bang? What do you think about this?
In this example, the other person removed the discussion from the original topic and moved on to another topic. So that he can celebrate his iron of knowledge in the debate.
If you understand this logical error, you may think of more examples.
Special Pleading Fallacy
This logical fallacy is still often used during the debate. This is when a person asks the case to exclude a particular person or thing from the general law
Example No. 1:
A lawyer from the Judge: I believe that drinking alcohol is a legal crime but Miramokal is a nobleman and he made a mistake without wanting to, so he should be forgiven
In this example, the lawyer believes that the drinker should be punished but exempts his client from it because the lawyer has charged a fee
Example No. 2:
First-person: Macroevolution experiments and observations are not possible so I can’t consider it a fact
Second person: Evolution observations are possible but they happen in a million years so we can’t observe them
Here the other person deviates from the common law and proves macroevolution without observation
Appeal to Authority
In this kind of logical fallacy, a person uses the words or deeds of a famous person as an argument in his favor, although this is not an argument because the opinion and deeds of that famous person also need an argument to be correct
This is when a person uses his claim as an argument.
First-person: What is the reason for the similarities in animals?
Second person: The reason is that they evolved from common innovation
First-person: What are the evidence of evolution?
Second person: Evidence of evolution is the similarity in animals
Fallacy of Equivocation
This is when a person uses two different things together as an argument
“Theory of evolution is a reality that the religious people of our society are throwing away. That is why we are lagging behind in the field of education.” In the above statement, a person combines the assumption of evolution to justify the fact that we are lagging behind in the field of education because we do not accept it. While not really at all
False Dilemma or False dichotomy
This kind of logical fallacy arises when a person gives only two options during the discussion while in fact there may be options in addition to it
“You either think the theory of evolution is correct or stop reading science because the denial of evolution is a denial of science. In the above example, a person has given only two options to his statement that either the theory of evolution is correct or science is wrong even though the theory of evolution is wrong and does not affect science
The argument of Silence or Absence of Evidence
This logical fallacy arises when someone says we don’t know anything right now so it doesn’t exist
“Paradise is just imaginary. To this day, science has found no evidence of giants.” The above statement shows that if science does not currently find evidence of something, it does not mean that it is wrong. ”
Appeal to the Stone.
This is when a party during the debate says that I do not believe in your argument but does not give any reasonable reason for not accepting the argument
“I don’t believe life can’t be created automatically.” Many people deny this argument during the debate but do not give any argument to the contrary
This is the logical fallacy I often encounter. In this, one party comes down to the nature of the opposing party instead of giving arguments in the debate
First-person: The theory of evolution is rejected by many modern scientists
Second person: Even modern scientists like you are ignorant who do not know where to read. In this example, you see that the other person attacked the first person instead of giving an argument which is a very wrong attitude
Ad hoc Rationalization
This logical fallacy arises when someone says it may be possible, so that is the reality
“When you believe that there can be generational change from generation to generation, it is possible that millions of years of change have turned into dinosaurs birds.” In the above example, a person has given a possible thing to the color of reality, even though it is just an idea
Shifting the Burden of Proofs
This is when a person makes a claim and instead of proving his claim with arguments, tells the other person to give arguments against him
“If evolution did not happen, how did so many species become?” In this example, you can see how a person asked the frontier for arguments instead of arguing himself
Fallacy of Incredibility
The victim of this logical misconception is the person who says that such a thing is beyond my comprehension and intellect so it is not possible.
“The soul does not exist. Man dies when his mind stops working.” The above example is about a person who does not understand the reality of the soul and therefore denies it
Argument from Ignorance
In this logical fallacy, a person refuses to know anything
“To this day no scientific paper has been printed that raises questions about neodyarone evolution.” The above statement is showing the ignorance of a person as he has not yet done research on these papers
In this logical fallacy, if one person raises an objection to someone, the other person raises the same objection
First-person: The head of this institution is corrupt. He is not doing the right thing.
Second person: The previous head was more corrupt than that. Then you didn’t speak. Here the second person places the same object on the first person who puts the first person on the second. Obviously, if the first person has no explanation, it does not mean that the second person is right
Argumentum ad Populum
This logical fallacy arises when someone says to prove that my theory is correct because there are more believers around the world. However, believing in more people is not an argument for being right.
“97% of the world’s scientists believe in the theory of evolution.”
In the above statement, believing that more people is not an argument for the validity of an ideology because at one time so many scientists also believed that the sun is static but today everyone knows that the sun is not static.
In addition, there are many logical errors in the books of logic. The purpose of these logical misconceptions was how you could make a debate a principle if you argue with someone so that the debate is a principled outcome rather than a debate that Could end with no results.