REASONING

The world is rife with crimes against logic, evidence and facts so weigh opinions
against the evidence and keep the batteries in your BS detector fully charged!

Any conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the previous statement is a non sequitur, a Latin phrase that means does not follow. The statement that Mary bakes the best cakes in town so she should run for mayor is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow (isn't logical) that Mary's skill with cakes is evidence that she has the skills to be the mayor. What follows are non sequiturs to help you decide if your opinions and the opinions of others follow the logic of reason and evidence.

Your right to express your opinion obligates me to listen but not to agree. My right to express my opinion obligates me to refute your opinion if you cannot justify it with evidence that coincides with reality. So keep the batteries in your BS detector charged because the world is rife with news, sermons, laws, policies, information, conversations and debates biased in political, religious, social, economic and stereotypical ways. And beware of arguments about why people want to do something rather than the cause-and-effect consequences of doing it. People want to kiss because they enjoy it. Yes, it can deepen a relationship (strong argument for) but kissing can also spreads germs (strong argument against).

Appeal to Authority... a claim that something is true because an expert said it was. "I found three blogs on the Internet that said coffee is dangerous." Your father tells you to clean your room. You ask why. He says, "Because I said so."

Appeal to Hypocrisy... avoiding the issue by reacting with criticism rather than with a reasoned response. You tell someone they lack the experience to be a leader. He says, "Neither do you!"

Bandwagon & Polls... an attempt to validate an opinion based on its popularity. Statistics are weapons of persuasion to imply you can't argue with numbers. But those who participate in surveys seldom represent the wider population because they're more passionate than most about a topic. What is true for them might not be true for the majority. "Seventy five percent of the people do it so it must be valid."

Burden of Proof... claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true. "There's no proof this place isn't haunted."

Circular... an argument that uses the same statement as both the premise and the conclusion. No new information or justification is introduced. "Peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow because I think peppers are the easiest to grow."

Causal Fallacies... events may happen coincidentally or in sequence without having a cause and effect relationship. "Buying ice cream increases your risk of being bitten by a shark because shark attacks are more frequent when ice cream sales are up." Arguments about guns are a causal fallacy. "Your claim that guns kill people is like me saying this pencil caused me to fail the exam."

Deductive Assumption... a conclusion based on the truth of a premise. "All men are stubborn. You're a man so you are stubborn." The premise is false so the conclusion is false. Politicians take their ideology for granted, and priests take their theology for granted. They are saying, "It goes without saying." But they do say it and assume it's the only valid position. What they don't realize is that there are opposing opinions. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" assumes you are or have been a wife beater.

Either/Or Dichotomy... a claim that there are only two mutually exclusive options. This either/or argument fails to acknowledge that other more reasonable options exist. "There are only two choices in the next election: Trump or Biden."

Equivocation... using a word that has two different meanings in two different parts of your argument. "Philosophy helps you argue better but there's enough hostility in this world already so why do we need to learn how to argue?"

Euphemisms... You can't change the world using words that appeal to illusion rather than to reality. Your shit house won't smell better by calling it an out house. Janitors are not sanitation engineers nor are typists data entry specialists. Nor can you change the world by playing to feelings rather than to facts so you don't offend anyone. And you can't change stereotypes with words that appeal to political correctness rather than to functional correctness. A white manager might want to give a black employee constructive feedback but doesn't for fear he'd be accused of racism. If the manager gives the black employee feedback, the black employee might want to complain but doesn't for fear he'd be accused of playing the race card. Ditto for gender, religious and other stereotypes. Jargon is sometimes used as a euphemistic attempt make an opponent appear to be naive, stupid or uninformed and therefore wrong by burying him with snow jobs, bull shit, psycho babble or technical gobbledygook.

Hasty Generalization... a claim based on a few examples rather than extensive research. "I got sick when I ate pizza from that place so I must be allergic to pizza."

Motives (Ad Hominem)... an attempt to invalidate an opponent's position based on a personal trait or fact about the opponent. "Mary shouldn't be mayor because her education policy is just an attempt to win the student vote." Motives frequently play a role in the game of politics. The announcement of a new policy is greeted with questions about the politician's motives rather than with a discussion of the policy's alleged merits. Motive ends the debate by changing the subject.

Red Herring... shifting focus from the debate by introducing an irrelevant point. "Losing a tooth can be scary but have you heard about the Tooth Fairy?"

Straw Man... a false version of a person's position rather than their actual argument. "Jack says we should ban plastics to save the planet from climate change."

Weaseling... using phrases like "It could be..." and "Chances are good that..." to make opinions conditionally possible and therefore immune from error.