The Anti-stupid Media Consumer Guide - How to Use Logic to Deconstruct and Interpret Narratives

With the plethora of social media platforms firing narratives at all times the woke listener is almost always juggling two or more arguments to make sense. People keep raising questions and on the surface, they are answered too but the issues they are concerned with remain stagnant, so it becomes essential for the audience to be able to differentiate between an actual logical argument and the more common fallacy-filled ones. This article follows a list of logical fallacies with examples intending not to convert the reader to a nerd (pointing out varieties of errors though it might be better than becoming a zombie in the great Indian political Apocalypse) but to show that everything that is being said is not sensible enough to believe.

The most frequent one is the ad hominem attack. This is when instead of countering the argument, the character of the person making it is questioned by doubting their authority, mental ability or social standing. For instance, when the Prime Minister called Mr. Rahul Gandhi “balakbuddhi" instead of addressing his accusations, he circumvented the issue. It should not matter who puts up a question as long as it has some fact to back up the doubt, after all even in the famous Christian Anderson's fable The Emperor's New Clothes it is a child who points out that the king is naked. It is not just one party, as is the dirty nature of politics, Congress too had to win the competition of the creative jab and called the PM “Bailbuddhi” making the same mistake. Another way it is used is through the “Tu queue” or you to fallacy, when the accused accuses the accuser of being guilty of the same crime. On countless occasions, when a politician is arraigned for corruption, they talk about the other party's members being more corrupt. This itself is an admission of guilt, but to the stupidly stirred mind it appears like a grand exposure; the light from which blinds them from the original crime.

People also tend to employ a red herring to divert attention sometimes to themselves and sometimes to another topic altogether. Bill Clinton in his grand jury testimony conveniently brought in the topic of his extramarital relationship to avoid certain questions knowing the voyeuristic nature of the media. He went further to split hairs on the issue of the English language by saying the famous line “It depends on what the meaning of the word is ‘is’.” effectively derailing the argument in a pointless direction.

Then there is another favourite, the creation of a false dichotomy. It is when the speaker tries to impose that there are only two options available, more often than not one of these is completely inappropriate, thus forcing the person to pick up what they are offering while having the illusion of a choice. When George Bush in his address to Congress after 9/11 said either you are with us or you are with the terrorists, he erased all possibilities of investigation and justice other than the controversial methods he advocated. It did lead to faster arrests and data gathering but with the incidental cost of propagating Islamophobia and loss of prestige of many innocents, which could have been stopped if a different approach had been adopted. This dichotomy is usually accompanied by two more assistants, false analogy and false cause to appeal to the pathos of the public. When Malala Yusufzai said “Education is war" it conveyed her dedication to the cause, even though it is difficult to draw parallels between the two.

Or when Mamata Banerjee said that BJP is more dangerous than the Maoists, there was a clear lack of corroboration for her comparison. Her claim that her life was endangered by the party in no way warranted that it is similar to the extreme left-wing organisation she referred to.  A false cause is when the success or failure of a scheme made possible by multiple factors is attributed to a single cause to support the arguments of the speaker. For instance, when the Prime Minister says that merits in public health are solely due to Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, without acknowledging the efforts made by healthcare providers and enthusiasts to generate awareness for prevention of diseases and the like it is a false cause.

The Strawman's way or slippery slope is yet another method in which the consequences or implications of an argument are extrapolated dramatically without a clear direction or proof of potential. Xi Jinping in a speech on the change in security law of Hong Kong in 2020 that led to widespread outrage, claimed that it was essential to maintain “Chinese sovereignty” and if not enacted would have led to uncontrollable chaos without further explanation. Similarly in India, Owaisi while speaking against the CAA said that it would lead to the “disenfranchisement of millions of Muslims” without supporting evidence of such a dire outcome both qualitatively and quantitatively, the act itself does affect the interest of the migrant Muslims but extending it to such a degree is going down the slope and should be checked. The bandwagon appeal is another trap to be careful of, it is when the participation level of a venture is shown to be proof of success rather than empirical evidence. As an example, the PM in his Mann Ki Baat during the pandemic emphasised the widespread support for the lockdown without presenting data on mortality and recovery outcomes. There is a loss of logic when an appeal to authority, nature or tradition is used to justify a decision.

An appeal to authority is not necessarily wrong like in a debate on law it is mandatory to take the authority of the Constitution as a deciding factor but it is important to be sure of the sanctity of the authority in discussions where it is not clear.  An action cannot be justified in India because it is being done in Russia so if the success rate there is being quoted as a reason to implement it here, it is an appeal to the wrong authority. A new plan cannot be rejected by simply stating that it is an artificial model without pointing out its pitfalls against the contemporary system, it would be a case of an appeal to nature or tradition. For instance, when Pravin Togadia, then the International Working President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad militated against the Uniform Civil Code claiming that India has had a tradition of allowing different laws for different communities so it must be continued, he should have swayed no heads but rationality does not always grace audience when required. Similarly, when Baba Ramdev called allopathy a “stupid and bankrupt science” that has led to the death of several people and called for a switch to Ayurveda just because it’s naturally derived, he appealed to the authority of nature. If one followed that line of thought one would consider surviving on air cause food poisoning kills people or maybe live on nothing at all if they checked the AQI of major Indian cities.

The last two fallacies worth pointing out are hasty generalisation and circular reasoning. At times people present their own opinions or that of a small group of people as a fact and expect the listeners to believe it. Thus establishing a non-agreeable statement as fact and deriving conclusions on this rickety base. Trump in his presidential announcement speech of 2015 stated “When Mexico sends its people they are not sending the best… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” (It is Mexico sending people to the US and not India sending scientists to NASA, if he believes what he said then why did he expect the best from anyone else is a mystery.) just to convince people in favour of his hostile immigration policies. He must have been surprised that the person who attempted his assassination was not a Mexican after the generalisations he made.

Circular reasoning is when a conclusion is assumed to be true and is restated in a slightly different way as an explanation (It might work out in the 'I love you because I love you' context but in non-romantic discussions, it is a definite fallacy.) Subramanian Swamy demonstrated this with his comments on the Ram temple back in 2018, when asked about why the temple should be built, he reasoned that it is the birthplace of Shree Ram as if the name Ramjanmabhumi left a doubt so a temple must be constructed. While there must be valid reasons as deemed fit by the honourable Supreme Court repeating the facts as a reason is begging the question. A classic example of the same is the PM's statement “Our economic policies are successful because they have led to economic growth. And we know there is economic growth because our policies are successful.” There is no linearity of reasoning in this argument and it cannot hold water if subjected to the slightest breeze of prudence.

These examples aim to lucidly explain the common kind of fallacies seen in political arguments and hopefully will enable the reader to break down superficial arguments to get real answers. It is not a mere coincidence but a conscious attempt to include instances of fallacy-filled statements from different parties and countries to show that manipulation can be in the modus operandi of any narrative you hear. AI and regulatory bodies, while helpful in spotting direct floutings like hate speeches or conspicuously logicless words, are still inadequate in detecting and regulating these misses in speeches as they lack nuanced knowledge and contextual information. Ultimately, it is the individual listener’s responsibility to be mindful and not get carried away by provocative or unreasonable arguments to foster a more thoughtful discourse.