I am amused at how social media has practically made a democracy out of stupidity, allowing dimwits to chime in and give their opinions on any controversial issue of the day. These are people who unwittingly peddle false narratives through fallacious arguments, which I am listing down below just because.
1. Argumentum ad populum: A fallacious argument which concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.
An example of this is the assertion that the President is doing the right thing because he still enjoys high approval rating. This is not necessarily true. Just because he is generally approved of does not automatically mean he’s the real McCoy, despite the fact he’s Imelda’s only “bigatin” son. But that’s another story.
2. Slippery slope: A fallacious argument which claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but in fact there is not enough evidence for that assumption.
When BBM issued a directive that forces everyone to include Bagong Pilipinas hymn and pledge in flag ceremonies, a lot of pundits say he might probably declare Martial Law too. This doesn’t automatically hold water unless they can prove the slope is real.
Just because he took a page from his father does not mean he would do everything he did. It takes more than a stupid directive to lead to that conclusion. Besides existing paradigm and conditions do not seem to provide an environment conducive to dictatorship. At least for now.
3. Non-sequitur: An invalid argument whose conclusion is not clearly supported by its premise. In Latin, this literally means “it does not follow.”
When someone calls you fat, that does not mean he is fat-shaming you in the absence of context and nuance. Maybe, he is calling you fat because you are fat. So, if your auntie says you seem to have gained weight, maybe she is just concerned about your health. Do not automatically take offense. Be the BIGGER person instead.
4. Red Herring — something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. Here, the argument used is not really relevant to or in reality has no connection with the topic being discussed.
Every time a politician is accused of corruption in court, his supporters are quick to point out that maybe he should not be prosecuted because other public officials who are equally guilty have gotten away from their crimes scot-free just because they are allies of the powers that be. This is clearly fallacious. The better proposition is to hold all them liable criminally. Otherwise, it’s like saying we should forgive Marcos for his alleged atrocities during Martial Law because they would pale in comparison to Hitler’s.
5.Hasty generalization: One that makes assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small).
An example is when someone asserts that Duterte should not be arrested by the ICC because the war on drug was successful simply because in his barangay nobody during his term was not selling drugs anymore. Or conversely, another person’s assumption that everyone hates his tokhang policy because every friend he talks to detests it.
These are just some examples of fallacious arguments. I would have wanted to add some more except that the space is limited. Ultimately, just be extra cautious when you posit an argument on social media. There’s a reason why opinions are worth two cents and why silence is golden.