Logical fallacies in media, political and intellectual discourse

We are all prone to fallacious thinking; the way forward is to recognise logical fallacies in one’s own thinking

The discourse of many of our politicians, media pundits and, most distressingly, the intellectual/academic community are symptomatic of a disturbing malaise of logical thought. Their discourse is often riven with logical fallacies that, intentionally or otherwise, advance held opinions, or are self-serving, or not so laudable. This tendency has always been discernible in our country but has now reached a crescendo, which is adding to confusion and stress.

The most common logical fallacy in our discourse is that of ‘false equivalence’, which is a fallacy that occurs when someone asserts that two (or more) things are equivalent, simply because they have some common characteristics, and never mind the differences that are far more significant. For example, equating apples and oranges, as both are fruits and have seeds; or equating cats and horses, as both are mammals and both can be kept as pets; or equating the automatic rifle and a knife, as both can be used as weapons.

False equivalence often takes the form of moral equivalence between different acts – something that ignores differences in magnitude of the things being equated. For example, saying that there is no difference between Mr X, who has committed financial fraud for which he was convicted, and Mr Y, who got a speeding ticket, because they have both committed crimes. In fact, the situation has become so logically bizarre in our politics and media that oftentimes being merely charged for minor or cooked-up crimes, and being convicted for major ones, are presented as equivalent.

False equivalences are often used together with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques. For example, raising a fallacious ‘red herring’ to distract people from the topic under discussion. Unfortunately, barring rare brief interludes, our talk shows are nothing but discussions of tangential matters or red herrings. Consequently, they lack focus and add no value to the understanding of issues. Then there is the ‘strawman argument’, which distorts an opposing view in such a manner, mostly negatively, that it can be easily attacked. 

Another pernicious logical fallacy is that of ‘false balance’, which occurs when we conclude that if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle, or that both are equally valid or invalid. This is widely on display in our media where both sides of a story are presented as if they are equal, without any concern for differences in their factual bases. Another aspect of false balance is giving equal weight to the opinions of individuals where there are clear differences between them in the logic of their arguments and the evidence proffered. In fact, in our media often the ones who engage in rants of personal anecdotes and attacks often get greater airtime. Consequently, most discussions on our public media are slanging matches of cluelessness, point-scoring, going off on tangents, personal calumny and plain lies. Distressingly, most anchors, instead of avoiding the false balance trap, actively contribute to and revel in it.

Our media pundits seem incapable of adhering to the simple lesson of journalism that “If one person says that it’s raining and another person says that it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.” (Jonathan Foster). Isaac Asimov describes false balance in the following words: “…when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

The false equivalence fallacy is discernible in day-to-day conversations, as well as in media, whether print or audio-visual. The problem is that upon hearing a false equivalence from a (so-called) pundit, most accept the fallacy as it is coming from someone who knows better, and therefore do not feel the need for a closer inspection that could reveal the fallacy. Unfortunately, most members of the above-mentioned communities often themselves indulge in such fallacies. Consequently, there is a downward spiral and vicious perpetuation of fallacies in the thinking and discourse of most of the chattering class.

Logical fallacies are patterns of reasoning that seem true on the surface but have one or more critical flaws, which only closer inspection can reveal. At root, fallacies are oversimplifications – like a cognitive shortcut that leave out important details, leading to wrong conclusions. They stem from a cognitive and/or emotional bias in which ideas, situations, objects or events are compared to one another as if they are the same, when in reality there are many crucial differences between them.

While this malaise has been rising in the chattering class, fortunately increasing numbers of ordinary folk seem able to see through them. However, in their desperation to convince the ordinary person to accept the fallacious argument/s, the chattering class keeps increasing such rhetoric, which in fact is counterproductive, and adds further to disbelief and rejection. Finally, someone may indulge in a fallacy intentionally, another unknowingly: if the former, then there is Machiavellianism, and if the latter, then there is intellectual poverty or laziness.

Last word: We are all prone to fallacious thinking; however, the way forward is to learn to recognise logical fallacies in one’s own thinking. It then becomes possible to recognise them in others, and as well make more accurate conclusions about the world around us.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 9^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.