6. How does relevance work?

A thinking error is a reasoning error: an argument that does not support its content. With a relevance fallacy, the premise is not relevant to the conclusion or point in the question. The thinking errors discussed in this chapter are all relevance thinking errors. Such thinking errors are also called red herrings. This is because if you drag a herring around over the ground behind or around you, it becomes impossible for a dog to smell anything other than the herring, and therefore it loses track - just as one can lose track of their thoughts because of thinking errors.

What is the "ad hominem" thinking error?

The "ad hominem fallacy" (also called "argumentum ad hominem") is the most common relevance fallacy we make. We hereby assess a claim made by someone based on the source of the claim and not so much the claim itself. An example is that something a professor says must be true, since he or she has a lot of knowledge. A distinction is made between four types of "ad hominem" thinking errors.

1. "Poisoning the well": when others, in advance, predict what someone is going to say and use this to ‘poison’ a persons credibility. Because someone already gave us a negative opinion of this person beforehand, we are more tempted to adopt this negative attitude as well, if the prediction serves to be true. This (mis)painting of someone’s character usually occurs beforehand and makes sure people do not believe the argument that follows.
2. "Guilt by association": the concept whereby a person is convicted by the people / opinion with whom he or she surrounds or would surround himself. An example of this is saying; You think the economy is doing well? Ugh, that sounds like something a democrat would say.
3. "Genetic fallacy": this occurs when we do not want to take a claim seriously because we believe that something is wrong with the person who claims it or the history of the claim. Make no mistake, in this case "genetic" does not mean that it has anything to do with genetics - "genetic" here means "of origin". Example: "God is just an idea that people came up with when science didn't exist."
4. The Strawman thinking error. A person here is guilty of this fallacy when he or she deliberately misrepresents or exaggerates the view of the counterparty, so that his or her point of view comes across better. With the Strawman it is often an exaggerated extreme conclusion that is drawn. Example: "Russian immigrants? Well then, we can just hand over the entire country to Putin! "

False dilemma

In this case, someone pretends that there are only two options in a certain scenario, while in reality there may be way more.  The "perfectionist fallacy" says that either something, for example, a new policy or law, has to be absolutely perfect. If that is not the case, then this policy will be rejected. This person actually acts as if there are only two options: something must be perfect and if not, it will not be looked at seriously anymore. With a line-drawing fallacy one draws a clear line to make a certain claim, while this does not have to be the case at all.

Misplacing the burden of proof

"Misplacing the burden of proof" is the case when, for example, the following interview occurs. A says: "God exists." B says, "How do you know?" A says, "Prove that he doesn't exist." This is a fallacy, since it is up to A to prove that God exists (and not to B), after all, he is the one who says that God exists. An example is an "Appeal to Ignorance". Someone assures us that we must believe that a certain claim is true because no one has proved that the claim is not.

The "begging the question" error

This is a fallacy where one uses an argument to claim that the premises are accepted and, as a consequence, the conclusion automatically is correct too.

Which thinking errors are caused by emotion?

There are various mistakes in thinking where influencing emotions is an important factor:

1. "Argument from outrage": these are "arguments" based on anger. People who think that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights are guilty of this fallacy when they say that "fundamentalist people with a tunnel vision" want to determine what other people do in their bedroom.
2. "Scare tactics": this is when people are purposefully being frightened so that they obey other people's orders. An example of such a tactic is "argument by force". In this case, someone is threatened so that he or she feels compelled to accept someone's authority. An earlier mentioned example of this is "God exists, and if you don't believe that then you will go to hell."
3. "Appeal to pity": in this case someone receives special treatment because that person is found pitiful.
4. "Apple polishing": this thinking error occurs when someone praises someone else and hopes that this will cause the other person to change their opinion. An example is that a child says to his mother: "Mommy, you are so beautiful, can I have a cookie?"
5. "Guilt tripping": in this case someone talks to someone else about feeling guilty. An example is that someone says the following: "How can you not invite James? He would never do that to you! "
6. "Appeal to envy": someone is guilty of this mistake when he or she envies someone and thereby exaggerates the bad sides of that person. An example is that someone says: "He may be very rich, but he is not well-mannered."
7. "Appeal to jealousy": when playing with someone's jealousy.

What are other common errors?

An irrelevant conclusion is when someone draw an incorrect conclusion that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. This is a thinking error that does not fit with the other categories of relevant thinking errors.

Two wrongs make a right: this thinking error occurs when you try to justify your own mistake by saying that the counterparty has also made a mistake. Someone who says this actually believes in "retributivism": if someone harms you, then you can also harm that person. An example is that maybe your neighbours are very noisy. In response you turn your music up massively to annoy them. So there is a kind of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth theory here.

Wishful thinking: here we think that what we wish for is the truth, and sometimes we ignore the facts in order to do so. For example, a smoker thinks that smoking is not bad for you and denies that it is.

When we speak of denial, we tend massively ignore facts in order to be able to keep our own beliefs or convictions.

Practice questions

1. What is a thinking error?
2. What is a relevance thinking error?
3. What is another name for a relevance thinking error?
4. What is the most common relevance thinking error?
5. What is a strawman?
6. Which thinking error does not fit with the categories of relevant thinking errors discussed?

Answers practice questions

1. A fallacy is a reasoning error; an argument that does not support its content
2. With a relevant thinking error, the premise is not relevant to the issue issue
3. Another name for a relevant thinking error is a "red herring".
4. The "argumentum ad hominem" is the most common relevant thinking error.
5. The "strawman" is a fallacy in which someone misunderstands or exaggerates the counterparty's vision.
6. The "irrelevant conclusion".