In the world of “what if” | Why we are drawn to counterfactual thinking

The ability to imagine alternatives to events that have already occurred distinguishes humans from other creatures and machines—artificial intelligence has not yet succeeded in creating a device that can devise counterfactual scenarios. The fact that we can travel in an imaginary time and rewrite our actions and their outcomes can prove to be an advantage or can lead to dysfunctional emotional and cognitive...

Accurate statistics and faulty interpreters

Even the most rigorously researched statistics are not immune from misinterpretation, and they can often be used in a way that obscures the truth.

Appeal to ignorance: Why it is useless to hide behind your finger

The appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is an error in thinking which argues that a conclusion is true because there is no evidence against it, or that a conclusion is false because there is no evidence in its favour.

Seduced by conspiracy theories

We live in a polarised world where conspiracy theories proliferate, but some people are more inclined than others to consume and propagate these theories rather than ignore or demystify them.

Thinking errors: What do we do with destructive thought patterns?

What we think about ourselves, over time, becomes our reality. This is a good enough reason to identify thinking errors left running in the background and to seek out strategies for healthier thinking.

There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute values. True or false?

By their very complexity, situational moral decisions demonstrate that there is an absolute good that we seek. Moral principles work together for the absolute good.

Hasty generalisations: Jumping from one to all, and from once to always

We use our experience and knowledge to understand what is unknown or inaccessible to us. We are attracted to patterns and judge the world in terms of what is already familiar to us. However, out of a desire to understand some things more quickly, we often draw conclusions without sufficient evidence. Thus we fall into the trap of the sophism called hasty generalization.

Appeal to hypocrisy: the trick of pointing the finger

When one wants to justify the harm one has done by saying that others have done the same or that this evil was only a reaction to the harm done by someone else, they commit the logical error of appealing to hypocrisy.

The problem with chronic desiderative thinking

“Yeah, I understand what you’re saying about Christianity. I’ve been there, a long time ago, but now that I’ve moved on, I have a different relationship with the universe and things are going much better for me on all levels.”

Two false oppositions: reason vs. faith and science vs. religion

"Intelligent, scientifically trained people no longer believe (or can no longer believe) in God."

The false dilemma: Are there really only two choices?

The false dilemma fallacy presents an issue as if there are only two ways to solve it—often, two opposite ways—when, in fact, there are more ways than that. The conflict between the two ways presented is also false.

Non Sequitur: A forced conclusion is not really a conclusion

Needing to process a multitude of complex information in a short amount of time can lead to erroneous reasoning. When a conclusion is supported by weak or irrelevant arguments, the reasoning falls into the category called non sequitur—does not follow, or irrelevant argument.

Circular arguments: a vicious cycle of faulty logic

A circular argument is an argument forming part of a thesis which has not been established, but still needs to be argued for.

Equivocation: Playing hide-and-seek in communication

When what someone says can be interpreted in multiple ways, we are in danger of coming to an understanding which is different to their intended message.

The most arrogant of all sophisms: the false accusation of logical error

In practice, people often accuse each other of making logical errors, but sometimes the accusation is false. Such an accusation is made by someone who does not understand what logical fallacies are and how they work, or by a manipulative person who takes advantage of the ignorance of those in the first category.