Have you ever thought that in almost every conversation and discussion, the other party may use various argumentation methods or misconceptions to get you to accept their point of view?
These discussion methods and misconceptions may be used in your daily life more often than you think. We have compiled 10 of them for you and explained them with examples.
“Ad Hominem” or “Personal Slander Sophism”, a tactic of attacking one’s personality during an argument.
Those who resort to this misconception target the personality of the other party instead of expressing their opinion on the issue being discussed. Thus, they think that they have proved the other party wrong.
However, this situation only indicates that the party who made this mistake has no valid argument.
The fallacy of “Tu Quoque” or “But you too…” is the inconsistency of trying to justify someone’s mistake by pointing out your fault.
Those who resort to this fallacy argue that the mistake of one side justifies the mistake of the other party. In other words, the other party makes the same mistake by using your mistake as an excuse and blames you as the main responsible.
This fallacy can also be counted as an “ad hominem” since it falls under the category of attack on the person.
The “Kafka Trap”, the irrationality of treating the accused as a criminal in self-defense.
Suppose a person or group has already decided that you are guilty.
While defending yourself and trying to prove the contrary, defending yourself makes you guilty. Because they see you proving yourself as proof of crime. After defending yourself, you are often faced with arguments such as:
The “false dilemma” is the misconception that you only have two options on an issue.
In the video above, George W. Bush said several times, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists!” word is included.
People don’t want to take sides on some issues. Sometimes they may not be in a position to make one choice and sacrifice the other. Therefore, the false dilemma is unfounded.
The party applying this method may want to control the other party or to adopt their own views.
“Scarecrow Logic Error” or “Strawman Fallacy” is when someone takes an argument and distorts what you’re saying and makes you a target.
Let’s say you gave a long speech in front of a large audience. You have arranged everything word for word as the audience expects, without saying anything wrong, and waiting for the audience’s questions.
Someone from the crowd comes out and distorts your words by making irrelevant inferences. While you are trying to explain yourself, the crowd gets angry and starts to blame you. You are being targeted. You suddenly become a “scarecrow” or a “scapegoat”!
The “Compromise Delusion” is the mistake of assuming that two parties that normally cannot be reconciled can be reconciled.
It has to be accepted that life can sometimes present you with inextricable situations.
The two people or parties arguing may not want to make any concessions to the other party. In such cases, it is not logically possible to reach a compromise.
The “Astonishing Question” is a tactic of asking questions that are overly loaded and that the other party would be ashamed to answer.
Imagine you are asking a question. But your goal isn’t to get a response, it’s to embarrass the other person for what they’ve done. Asking the “surprising question” falls into this category.
The person to whom the question is asked often feels guilty and remains silent because they cannot answer your question or come up with a logical answer.
The “Tweezer Sophistry” is the tactic of picking only the parts of someone’s words that will work for you and ignoring the rest of the conversation.
Imagine you are picking cherries in a garden. When picking cherries, your goal is not to collect all the cherries, you just pick the cherries you like, “tweezers”.
Now consider the same method in a discussion. The other party may choose only the parts of your words that will justify itself and try to justify itself.
This method is called “cherry picking” in English, as in our first example.
“False Equivalence”, the inconsistency of two unrelated situations being presented as being equal.
Presenting an opinion that has nothing to do with the topic and not being relevant to the current situation is false equivalence.
You witness a sudden departure from the subject and inferences that would not normally be made. You don’t know what to say to the other party, you think to yourself, “What does it matter?” comes to shout.
The “Historic Fallacy” is the mistake you will make if you criticize people who lived in the past according to today’s conditions.
As you can imagine, there is a gap between the past and the present, both technologically and socially.
A situation that is taboo or not possible today may be a normal situation centuries ago or a problem that has not yet been resolved.
If we do not have clear information about the customs, traditions, norms, political situation and social structure of that time, it is unreasonable to make a definite inference.
What do you think about these misconceptions and discussion methods? Which ones have you come across so far?
56027
