Kenneth Sitolo

Discuss seven common fallacies in thinking. Common fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning (Woods, 2013). According to the author, arguments and debates are an important part of life because they help to resolve conflicts. However, some arguments are erroneously and can lead to people basing their decision on false information. Why is it important recognize fallacies during an argument? To prevent making decision from false information which can lead to failure, frustration and disappointment. This articles is going to discuss common fallacies in thinking that injure accurate conclusions and predictions. Most people practice confirmation bias — which is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values (Walton, 1995). A possible objection here would be that people are always searching for what is true and are ready to discard their previous beliefs if it contradict the truth. While this may be true for a few people such as researchers; however, most politician always want to hear that they are doing well and succeeding even if they are performing poorly. According to Douglas (1989), confirmation bias makes people to be overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Fischer (2005) argues that a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than dis confirming evidence. In social media, Frans (2009) argues that confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views. The second common fallacy is stereotype which is a generalized belief about a particular category of people (Douglas, 1987). Those who deny this would argue that people do not discriminate one another but they simply tell the truth about a particular group of people. For example, a lot of people believe that most people from Brazil are good footballers because the champions of football such as Pele come from that country. This may be true for a few football players but if one goes in Brazil he or she will be surprised to discover a lot of poor footballers who play for other teams. According to (Hamblin, 1998), stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate. The third type of common fallacy is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X" (Fischer, 2005). Those who agree with this fallacy argue that events usually happen by following one another. For instance, if you vote for a president with knowledge of economics the country will prosper. Most people will think that the country prospered because of the president's knowledge of Economics. The event of voting for a president with knowledge of economics led to the economy prospering. However, the prospering of the economy might happen because of good rains which results in more agricultural products. Sometimes it can occur because the people in the country are hard working. The prospering of the economy might not be related in any way with the president's knowledge of Economics. Another example is when a child fall down when going to school and later on complain about a stomach ache. People might argue that the cause of the stomach ache is the result of the child falling down. It might be the stomach ache is the result of other factors such indigestion. The idea that the child's falling might have caused the stomach ache might not be true. According to Woods (2013), post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation sometimes appears to suggest causality. According to the author, the fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection. The fourth type of common fallacy is implying causation from correlation. According to Woods (2004), correlation does not imply causation means two events occurring together do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Those who For example, if people start fighting at a political rally does not imply that the fighting happened because of the political rally. They might have fought for other reasons. A question that arises here is why do people associate as cause and effect events happening together? This is because people find it much easier to associate things that are happening to together as cause and effect rather than to try to find out the real cause of the problems. Walton (2010) argues that this fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'). Walton (1995) argues that this differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one. The fifth fallacy is called an ad hominem. According to Douglas (1987), this fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits the person holds. For instance, the argument of a particular person may be rejected because the person is poor, rude, un respectful, a drunkard, comes from a weak tribe and maybe is a homosexual. A question of interest here would be to ask: ls it wrong to reject or criticize another person's point of view by arguing that the person is a prostitute, homosexual, a lier and drunkard? Whether the person is a drunkard or prostitute does not affect the truth of what the person is saying. Therefore, it is very important to concentrate on how reasonable the person's argument is rather than the personality or character of the person. Douglas (1989) argues that ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging." According to the author, they are considered unethical because politicians can use them to manipulate voters' opinions against an opponent without addressing core issues. A sixth common fallacy is straw man argument which attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument (Frans, 2009). Why, then, is this the case? According to the author, the purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is. For instance, when people argue that the Tonse Alliance government in Malawi failed to address unemployment as well as inflation, the alliance responded by saying Democratic Progressive Party is full of corrupt officials and thugs who ruined Malawi. According to Hans (1995), the straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. The author further argues that instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place. Now that we have examined six fallacies, it remains for us to examine the final fallacy called slippery slope argument. This fallacy assumes that a certain course of action will necessarily lead to a chain of future events (Hamblin, 1998). It is usually argued at this point that if you mention a chain of events that might happen in future if people or a person took a particular action, that strengthen your argument. For example, a politician might argue that if you don't vote for me in the forth coming election, the ruling party will continue acts of corruption, this will lead to withdrawal of donor aid, this in turn will lead to shortages of foreign currency, which then will lead to inflation and unemployment and final will lead to the collapse of the economy. However, it is not true that increase in corruption stops donors from helping low developed countries. They only find a new way of channeling aid without involving the corrupt officials. In conclusion, it is very important for people to understand common fallacies because that prevents them from making decisions based on false information. Making decisions from false information can lead to failure, stress and anxiety, frustration and in some cases death. REFERENCES Hamblin, C. (1998). Fallacies. Methuen Vale Press: London Hans (1995). Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings New York: Penn State Press Frans, B. (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Springer : London Douglas N. (1989). A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Douglas, W. (1987). Informal Fallacies. John Benjamins: Amsterdam Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa Walton, D. (2010). "Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are" Pearson: New York John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning: Springer: Cambridge Woods, J. (2013). Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. College Publications: London Fischer H. ( 2005). Toward a Logic of Historical Thought Harper Torchbooks: London: