Once the temperatures start rising, I find myself back in the same worn out rotation. I rotate through the same t-shirts and shorts every week. And this year I decided to buy a few upgraded staples from Quinn. Their pieces are easy, elevated and somehow make me feel more put together without even trying. Like 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30.
swimwear sandals so much more and the best part is everything with quince is priced 50 to 80 percent less than what you'd find a similar brand And by working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives us luxury without the markup. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. My current favorite quince purchase is their 100% organic cotton gauze short sleeve shirt.
This shirt is unbelievably comfortable. I'm obsessed with it. It's the perfect shirt for summer. You can dress it down for the beach or up for dinner. It's timeless. It's lightweight. It's a great price. I really do love it. Treat your closet to a little summer glow up with quince. Go to quince.com slash wiserworld for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com. slash wiser world to get free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash wiser world
Hey friends, welcome back to Wiser World. Today we are continuing a conversation that we started in December 2023, logical fallacies. Now you'll remember from that episode that a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning and it weakens an argument. Basically, it's when an argument is structured in a flawed way, so we can't trust the conclusion, even if it sounds persuasive at first.
It's kind of like a beautifully decorated cake with rotten eggs inside. It might look convincing on the outside but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Another way to think about it is it's logical because we're talking about the rules of reasoning, how we move from evidence to conclusions, right? And it's fallacy because the reasoning goes wrong somewhere. The connection between ideas is flawed. So logical fallacy.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart. How to think clearly, logically, and wisely in a world that is increasingly polarized and contentious and emotional. And I find myself getting more and more discouraged. by the lack of respectful dialogue that I see in these heated comment sections online. I know many of you feel the same way. And I realized, you know what? I can do something about this. I can share more tips for logical thinking. And that's what we're going to do today.
In our last episode on logical fallacies, we walked through eight common ones that show up in arguments all the time, in the news, on social media, at family dinners, even inside our own heads.
And from the messages that I got afterward, a lot of you were very fired up. You were recognizing fallacies in real time. You were noticing them in your own thinking, and that's exactly what we want to be doing. So today I'm bringing you part two with nine more logical fallacies to add to your critical thinking toolbox. These are ones that I didn't cover in episode 35.
Which, by the way, you can go back and listen to that anytime. Always helpful. I always need the reminders. But these ones today are just as sneaky and just as common. And as always, don't stress about memorizing the names. That's not as important. What matters most is being able to recognize a flawed argument and pause before letting
them take us away. So before we get into it, just a quick reminder to click the plus button or subscribe to the podcast so you can see each time a new episode drops. My plan is to have two episodes a month through August of 2025 this year.
And then my schedule opens up a lot in the fall and I'm planning on releasing weekly episodes starting in September, which is really exciting. You can also subscribe to my free email newsletter at wiserworld.com. And if you want to learn more about the topic, we're discussing each month. I have resources that I share on Patreon, patreon.com slash wiserworldpodcast. For just a few dollars a month, you can get more resources that will help you deepen your understanding.
All right, let's dive into part two of logical fallacies. Number one is called the false cause fallacy or post hoc ergo propter hoc. I know that's a mouthful, don't worry, it's actually super simple. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc is Latin for after this, therefore, because of this. In other words, it's the assumption that just because one thing happened after another thing, the first thing must have caused the second thing. Let me give you an example.
Ever since I started wearing my lucky socks, our team hasn't lost a game. Or, the mayor was elected in January and by March, crime has gone up, so clearly the new mayor is responsible. This fallacy messes with our natural desire to see patterns, right? Our brains love to connect dots. But sometimes those dots have nothing or little to do with each other. Just because two things happen around the same time doesn't mean that one caused the other. Now there is such thing as causation, right?
Some things do really cause other things, but not always is there a pattern when we think that we see one. I saw this one the other day and I found it so absurd. It actually made me giggle. It was a government official, a very high-ranking government official, who was talking about how the price of eggs was finally down again and they were taking credit for it. We took office and now the price of eggs have gone down. And I laughed, I thought.
That is false cause at its finest. Now, sure, maybe this government official helped make policy that improved that, but there likely was a major combination of factors like... Avian flu, bird flu, had made its way through chickens and many, many chickens had died or had to be killed. And now finally, months and months later, flocks have finally been able to rebuild.
Or maybe farmers found new ways to protect their birds better from the avian flu. Or demand went down because the price was so high. There's so many factors that went into why the price of eggs have finally gone down. And I just thought it was so comical that this official was taking office as though suddenly eggs are cheaper because we happen to be in power now. That's not a real cause effect.
So to avoid this fallacy, a question we can ask ourselves is, is there actual evidence of a cause and effect relationship here? Or is it just timing? What else could be going on here? So watch out for that one. That's the false cause fallacy. All right, let's move on to number two, the bandwagon fallacy. This is also called appeal to popularity. So it's basically saying if everyone else is doing it or believing it, then it must be right.
And we see this all the time in advertising. Join the millions who have already switched. Or most people believe in this candidate, so they have to have the best ideas. Or everyone in our friend group is agreeing, so why are you questioning it? Sometimes, yes, what is popular is a good idea. So it's not like we should avoid all things that are popular.
But just because an idea is popular doesn't automatically mean that it's illogical or ethical. History is packed with examples of widely accepted beliefs that turned out to be deeply harmful and deeply unethical, like segregation, slavery, witch trials, we could go on and on and I think what draws my attention is if someone is trying to get me to do something simply because everyone else is doing it.
That, for me, is a red flag. And we've talked about this a lot in the Cuba episodes with groupthink, right? Sometimes groups are wonderful and great. Sometimes, not so much. So one simple tip for this one to avoid hopping on the bandwagon just because everyone's doing it is to ask yourself. Is this actually a good idea or just a common one? Just because it's common doesn't mean it's a good idea. All right, number three.
This is the appeal to emotion. And this one is very subtle because we're human. We feel things. That's not a bad thing. But an appeal to emotion is when someone tries to manipulate your feelings instead of offering a logical argument. So you might hear things like...
If you don't donate to this cause, then you clearly don't care about children. Or if you don't make a post about this political thing, then you clearly don't care about it. If you don't come to Grandma's birthday dinner, she's going to be heartbroken. And do you want to be the reason for why she's sad? If you really loved me, you'd move across the country with me right now. Right? These are all...
These are all appeals to emotion and feelings are valid and emotions can be part of persuasion. But if it's the only thing that's being used to convince you, that's where the logic breaks down. So you can ask yourself here, Is there actual evidence behind this or is this just an emotional pull? And that can help you avoid the appeal to emotion fallacy. All right, number four, this is the you too fallacy. This is when someone responds to criticism by turning it back on the accuser.
without actually addressing the argument. So an example of this would be, you said I should recycle more, but I saw you throw a plastic water bottle away yesterday. Or you're telling me to stay calm, but you yelled at me last week. It's basically saying you did it too, which might be true, but it doesn't address the issue at hand. It is a deflection. And we see this all the time in politics, especially. We see it at home too.
But in politics, with political pundits, with commentators, I see this all the time. Let me give you an example. I've got politician A. I've got politician B. Politician A says, My opponent has almost always failed to deliver his election promises, and everyone should remember that. And politician B says, you didn't deliver your promise to increase the tax rate, which was at the center of your election campaign.
Alright, alright, let's talk this out. So politician B deflects the criticism by pointing out that politician A also had an unfulfilled promise.
doesn't address the original accusation, right? This is classic U2 fallacy. And I think a better response would have been, there are reasons for why I wasn't able to deliver on that promise, and I'm going to address those openly. And when I'm finished, I'd like to talk about how you also failed to deliver on your election promises, and we'll discuss those.
I think that would be a much better way to handle that. It's addressing the issue. It's also talking about how it could have happened on the other side, right? It's tempting. to dodge responsibility. But two wrongs don't make a right. And logic is asking us to deal with each claim on its own merit. And that's important. Okay, number five. This is called the no true Scotsman phallus.
This one's a little bit quirky, but it's very common. The no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone tries to protect a generalization from any sort of counter example by just changing the definition of the group. Let me give you some examples. Let's say that someone says no true American would ever criticize the country. And then you respond, but lots of Americans criticize the country because they want to make it better. And then they respond, well, then they're not a real American.
Do you see how the person changed the definition of American? Another example is, all real feminists feel this way. And then let's say you respond, well, I'm a feminist and I don't feel that way. And then they say, well, then you're not a real feminist. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy. We see this all the time. You see what's happening here is that the argument is shifting the goalpost.
Instead of acknowledging that the group is diverse the person redefines the group to exclude anyone who disagrees And to stay logical, we need to allow for nuance within groups. Most groups are not monoliths, and that is a good thing. We want to keep it that way. So that's the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Number six is the loaded question fallacy. And this shows up when someone asks a question that has a built-in assumption, which makes it very tricky to answer without sounding guilty, even if you're not. It's the debate equivalent of a trap. I've noticed these a lot in the law and courtroom shows that we sometimes watch. I'm always watching for the loaded questions. So here's an example.
So, have you stopped cheating on your taxes? Whether you say yes or no, the question is assuming that you have cheated on your taxes in the past. This pops up a lot in politics, but it also happens a lot in homes between partners, couples, children, parents, teachers. students it's a very common one here are some that i've seen in real time why don't you ever help around the house
This is based on the assumption that you never help, right? Another one. When are you going to start listening to me? The assumption is that you haven't been listening at all. Or why do you always have to ruin everything? This assumes that the person is habitually destructive.
This is a kind of questioning that shuts down any sort of nuanced discussion because it puts the person being asked the question on the defensive. So a better, more logical approach would be to ask open, neutral questions like... Could we talk tonight about how we've been dividing up chores? Or can we revisit this conversation? I'm not sure I feel hurt. Or I'm hurt by the damage that's been done here. Can we please talk about it?
Now if someone gives you a loaded question, it puts you in a compromised position. So one thing that I will do is I'll say... This question feels loaded. No matter how I answer, I'm going to lose. So instead, I'm going to answer this other question that gets more to the heart of the issue. That usually goes pretty well. It's a bold approach. But it's difficult to answer a loaded question, right?
Right now, the Home Depot has spring deals under $20. So, what are you working on? If you're planning on cooking out this season, head to the Home Depot so you can fire up the grill some charcoal. Right now. Valid on select items only. Alright, number seven is the false analogy. Now, a false analogy happens when someone compares two things that aren't really comparable in the way that the argument suggests, even if they look very comparable at first glance. They're tricky.
Analogies and metaphors can be very helpful, but they become fallacies when the comparison is too much of a stretch. So here's a very obvious example. We should not have to wear a seatbelt. Forcing people to wear seatbelts is like forcing them to eat broccoli. No, no, no. One is about public safety and the other is about personal dietary choices. In order for a comparison to make logical sense, they have to be similar in the ways that matter for the argument.
I see this one a lot on social media. And I recently saw something that when it was going around, it really upset me. And I'm going to tell you a little bit why it upset me. It was an image with two pictures side by side. And on one side was an image of prisoners, black and white, prisoners in close quarters in the terrorist confinement center in El Salvador, which is sometimes called CICOT. And this prison has garnered a lot of attention recently.
On the other side, the other image was a black and white image of Holocaust victims in close quarters in a concentration camp in 1945. And the caption said, one of these was taken in 2025 and one of these was taken in 1945. Now, I'm assuming that the person who made this image was trying to make an argument about maybe falsely accused people in this El Salvadorian prison. or maybe human rights issues that are going on in that prison.
That's their prerogative. However, where the argument went wrong, where it became a false analogy, is that it is not a correct analogy to compare a prison. where most people in that prison are convicted felons, and in this particular prison, drug cartel members who have done a lot of harm. To compare that to concentration camps in World War II, which were full of innocent Jews and innocent people, that was the miss. That was the massive false analogy here. Right?
They were not comparable in the way that the person was trying to make the point. So to avoid this fallacy, this false analogy fallacy, we need to think, are these two things really alike in the ways that matter for this argument? It's an important one to watch out for because it's very sneaky.
Alright, number eight is the association fallacy. Now this fallacy happens when someone tries to link a person or an idea or a group to something unrelated, usually negative, in order to discredit them. So here's a really ridiculous one. Adolf Hitler drove a Mercedes, therefore people who drive Mercedes are bad. Interesting. Or, you hang out with people who don't believe in climate change, so I can't trust your opinions. Or, that organization donated to a controversial group once.
So everything they say must be wrong. It assumes that if two things share a trait, or they have a relationship with each other, they must share all traits, including moral and ethical qualities. But that logic is clearly flawed. Doesn't matter. We still do this all the time. I have shared posts on Instagram from time to time.
Maybe I'd share like a quote or an idea that someone else posted that I agree with. And every time I do this, I inevitably have someone message me and say something like, that person is too liberal. So I am going to unfollow you. Or that person is too conservative, so I'm going to unfollow you. I don't trust you anymore.
And I find this so interesting because I'm like, wait, I agree with this one thing this person said. It doesn't mean that I believe everything they've ever said or everything they've ever done or I'm completely aligned with all of their politics. That's ridiculous. I specifically follow people online that I disagree with. I do this on purpose. I like to keep an eye on what people are saying on topics that I have strong opinions on.
And I also kind of like to confuse the algorithm. I like to have a wide variety of viewpoints so that I can figure out what I really think. And sometimes I really do agree with a particular thought or idea from someone that has very different politics than I do. And I think it's wrong. And it truly is a logical fallacy to just associate a person with another person as though they're the same. If they agree on one thing, suddenly they agree on everything. No, right? That's just not logical.
The flip side of this fallacy can be the exact opposite. It's honor by association. So this is assuming that something must be good or right because it's linked to a respected person or a respected group. This health advice must be great because my favorite celebrity does it. Or she quoted Martin Luther King Jr. so her opinion must be correct.
It's not logical. You see it happen all the time, right? Especially in advertisements, social media. So a way to avoid this fallacy is to ask yourself this question. Am I judging this idea based on the argument itself? or just based on who it's associated with, whether for good or for bad. it's a tricky it's a slippery slope right Alright, last one, number nine, the non sequitur. Now a non sequitur is Latin for it does not follow.
And this logical fallacy is when the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises. In other words, it's when someone makes a statement or an argument that seems disconnected from what came before it. So here's a really simple example. She's wearing red shoes, so she must be really good at math. The color of her shoes has nothing to do with her math skills, right? The conclusion doesn't follow. That was very obvious, right? But there are...
some sneakier non sequiturs. Here's another example. If we can send a man to the moon, we should be able to cure the common cold. Ooh, like I could see myself falling for this one, right? I've done this sometimes where I think to myself, well, we can send a man to the moon. Why can't we solve water and sanitation issues here on earth? I've actually said that before.
The truth is that space travel and curing viruses or solving water and sanitation issues are two completely different scientific challenges and one does not logically lead to the other. And while I agree, right, that if we can send a man to the moon, we probably should be doing some more things for... curing the common cold or water and sanitation. But it's still a non sequitur fallacy to compare those side by side in such a black and white way.
And in logic and debate, a non sequitur can derail a conversation just because the reasoning doesn't connect. And so one question that we can ask ourselves is, does the conclusion actually follow from the evidence they just gave? Or are they just jumping to something unrelated? Alright, there we have it. Nine more logical fallacies to add to our list. Let's recap. The first was false cause. This is confusing sequence with cause.
Second was bandwagon, which is assuming that popularity means truth or means good. The third is appeal to emotion, using feelings to manipulate instead of logic. The fourth is you too, which is dodging criticism by pointing fingers. Number five was the no true Scotsman. This is redefining groups to shut down disagreement. Number six is the loaded question. It's asking something that presumes guilt or assumes guilt right off the bat.
Number seven is the false analogy. This is comparing two things that seem alike but they aren't truly alike in relevant ways for the argument. Number eight is the association fallacy, linking a person, idea, or group to something unrelated in order to discredit or credit them. And number nine is the non sequitur. This is making an argument that seems disconnected from what came before it.
Now again, just because something is a logical fallacy doesn't mean that there can't be underlying truth or merit to what is being said. The problem is usually associated with oversimplification, how relevant it is.
or showing cause and effect that doesn't quite line up and again emotions are very important they're valuable but being able to balance our emotions with logic and reasoning is essential and it's really easy to get lazy and live off our emotions But when we develop that side of our brains by tempering our emotions with logic,
We usually are less likely to be manipulated, less likely to be offended, more likely to have meaningful conversations. The more we can spot these, the more thoughtful and empowered we become in our conversations, our decision-making, even our inner dialogue, we get thrown off. lot less and again the goal here isn't to win arguments it's to be people who think carefully and listen deeply
lead with humility and are willing to stop and pause and think, wait a minute, this sounds really appealing. This seems like it's making sense to me. But something's wrong here. If it looks like fish, if it smells like fish, it acts like fish, it's probably fish. And I think that understanding and considering logical fallacies and re... Reminding ourselves of different logical fallacies is really important in this day and age, especially with social media.
just the internet, the world wide web. It's just a time where we really need to be thinking about these things. I appreciate you listening. I hope you enjoyed the episode. If you did, please share it with someone who loves a good debate. Someone who wants to sharpen their thinking. And again, if you want to support the podcast, you can always join us on patreon.com slash wiserworldpodcast. I'll share extra resources, some behind the scenes content.
I really appreciate you supporting the podcast by listening, sharing, and subscribing. And until next time, let's keep making the world a little wiser.