The exchange of ideas, if sparked with a clear mind, will be an enlightening discussion. However, sometimes we encounter arguments that seem strong, but are actually fragile, because they are built on logical fallacies - errorsin reasoning that are misleading.
Arguing with people who use faulty reasoning will never lead to agreement. We just go around in circles discussing something with no end in sight. The cause of this kind of misguided thinking stems from the imposition of logical principles without regard to their relevance.
From the beginning, humans will tend to be more individualistic in articulating their opinions. If necessary, other people's opinions that are not the same as theirs are wrong.
According to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, there is a tendency for humans to use argumentation or dialectic as a means to defeat their opponents. Humans will unconsciously always show their satisfaction as arrogant creatures. Discussion, debate or dialectic are understood only as skills to win.
In order to win the argument, man is capable of doing things that are far from the value of sportsmanship. He will weaken arguments by distorting, drawing false conclusions, and misusing evidence or language.
Then if someone deliberately uses a logical fallacy and it is forced on others to make a policy, then this is already at the level of manipulative harm. Manipulative people often use various means to influence and control others for personal gain.
Manipulative people often use various means to influence and control others for personal gain.
Often, these actions are subtle and hard to recognize, leaving their victims feeling confused, guilty, or even unaware that they are being manipulated.
Resistance to logical fallacies
To deal with others' logical fallacies, in addition to remaining calm, we need to identify the fallacies used, and check and recheck our arguments. Then, prepare a counter to neutralize the wrong mindset of the manipulative discussion partner.
The purpose of this resistance is not to defeat, but to show the limitations of the other side's arguments. It is also not forbidden, if in refuting the person's arguments, we also use arguments from misguided thinking. As long as we can influence him, defeat him
This counter tactic is meant to show the limitations of the arguments and the narrowness of the opposing party's way of thinking. In this way, we teach them that their arguments have many holes, and are not the only truth.
In addition to providing two modes of undermining the opponent's argument, Schopenhauer also provides two methods for rejecting arguments, namely rejecting directly and rejecting indirectly. The direct method is done by attacking the foundation of the opponent's argument directly. Meanwhile, the indirect method attacks the opponent's argument by examining the consequences of the argument.
It's important to remember, when arguing with logical fallacies, not to get caught up in provocations. Focus on the substance. If someone makes a personal attack, redirect it back to the content of the argument, then ask questions that invite clarification, opening up a space for dialog.
It's important to remember, when arguing with logical fallacies, not to get caught up in provocations. Focus on the substance.
In that way, every discussion is a field. We can plant seeds of wisdom, or spread thorns of ego. Public space is where we exist as thinking and acting human beings.
Dialogue is the path to wisdom. When faced with a logical fallacy, don't just be an arguer, but be the one who leads to a meaningful conclusion. Be a light in the darkness of lost reason.
