The false analogy: when the apple insists on being a pear
The false analogy or the faulty analogy consists of the incorrect use of the analogy argumentative scheme without first meeting the requirements of a correct comparison.
Conspiracy theories, fake news and the truth that “sets us free”
Conspiracy theories and fake news are not the same thing, although the two categories have much in common.
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.
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.
How to critically evaluate a text
Almost a century ago, writer Virginia Woolf noticed people’s tendency to approach books “with clouded and divided minds, asking fiction to be true, poetry to be false, biographies to be flattering and history to chime with prejudices.”
Appealing to authority: an expensive logical mistake
In everyday life, whether we like it or not, we rely on the information provided by experts or specialists. However, no authority deserves blind trust. When we take someone's word for granted simply because that person is an authority, we make the logical mistake called "appeal to authority."
How to make sure we have a rational faith
Fundamentalist movements, extremist and sectarian religious beliefs, manipulations of the mass of believers, conspiracy theories within religious sects, and other such threats, emphasise the need for critical thinking.
Erosion of trust | The ultimate effect of conspiracy theories
From television stories to personal experiences, we live in a world where honesty seems to be an increasingly rare commodity and suspicion and scepticism become protective shields.
The anatomy of belief: Part 1 | When reason becomes just another emotion
Western societies pride themselves on their access to information. Compared to our predecessors, we seem to be the most informed generation to have ever lived on Earth. However, paradoxically, the more data we have access to, the harder it is to determine what is true and what is false.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Argumentum Ad Hominem or how you attack yourself when attacking others
In an argumentative discussion each party involved must be able to express their point of view without constraints, discrimination or other interferences. This is, in fact, an important prerequisite for the effort to overcome differences of opinion. In practice however, often things are far from this ideal. Not only do interlocutors not respect each other’s right to free speech, but they also resort...


























