So many times I’ve heard people claim that engineers are not social, etc… Now while some may not actually be that social, I do believe a majority of us are just confused because the vast majority of people are illogical and see it as logic. Therefore we continually are dumbfounded that people can’t make the basic connections of causality that we can and infer illogical rationales, etc… However, that’s not a good or bad thing. People don’t have to be logical and we are not required to deal with illogical people if we so choose. However, logic is the basis of our degrees and it behooves one to know the standard logic fallacies! The following is an excellent reference.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

One of the best sites I have seen that clearly identifies logical fallacies. If these don’t seem extremely obvious initially, I strongly encourage you to take an introduction to logic class. I did over at MCC as part of my Philosophy Minor and loved it. It does depend upon the professor, but there is a surprising amount of “math” within that logic course. At the bare minimum, you will be introduced to Boolean logic which has applications in Circuits / Electronic Devices and programming.

To summarize and provide examples:

Strawman Argument : Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

False Cause : Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

Appeal to Emotion : Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

The Fallacy Fallacy : Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the argument itself must be wrong.

Slippery Slope : Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Ad Hominem : Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Tu Quoque : Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the acuser – answering criticism with criticism.

Personal Incredulity : Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.

Special Pleading : Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when a claim is shown to be false.

Loaded Question : Asking a question that has a presumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.

Burden of Proof : Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

Ambiguity : Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

The Gambler’s Fallacy : Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheels spins.

Bandwagon : Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

Appeal to Authority : Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

Composition / Division : Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all or other parts of it.

No True Scotsman : Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.

Genetic : Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from or from whom it comes.

Black or White : Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist

Begging the Question : A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.

Appeal to Nature : Making the argument that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.

Anecdotal : Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.

The Texas Sharpshooter : Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.

Middle Ground : Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth.

Now I debated providing some more real world examples of students, or current politics, etc… Then it dawned on me, that students may make the Black or White arguement and assume a critique of one political candidate must mean I’m for the other. Best not to go down that route.

That being said, I do believe the examples that he provides are adequate. I challenge you to retrain your thinking to be cognizant of these logical fallacies. However, don’t feel it necessary to point out everyone’s issues. No one likes a know it all, no one is perfect, and not everyone is an engineer. However, if you do find some intelligent and logical friends, … hold on to them as debates with intelligent people are fun.