The Best Way to Expose Logical Fallacies: Don’t Call Them by Name

In my last post I talked about something I’ve been noticing recently, that people, especially pro-life nerds like me, are tempted to talk about logical fallacies all the time in conversation. There are several dangers to this. I’ve argued already that the first danger is accusing somebody of a logical fallacy when they didn’t actually commit one.

iStock_000015937656XSmallIf you dedicate yourself to educating yourself on what the logical fallacies actually are before bringing them up, you will be a more effective debater. But there’s a good, better, best aspect to exposing logical fallacies while creating good dialogues with people.

I think the best way to expose logical fallacies is to note the specific fallacy mentally and then use questions to show the person the problem, without name dropping the specific fallacy.

My friend and colleague Trent Horn from Catholic Answers talked about this on an episode of Life Report. I’ll paraphrase what he said.

I would encourage people to not say ‘you committed X fallacy’ because it’s terribly presumptuous and arrogant and most people don’t appreciate talking to someone who points out every little fallacy they make. Instead you should follow Greg Koukl’s tactics and Justice For All’s training and ask, “why do you think that?” And then continue to ask follow up questions.

As Trent suggests, you could ask whether a bad person could be right about something. That’s so much better than accusing them of making an ad hominem fallacy!

Confession time: it was only a few months ago that I responded to somebody who posted a comment on my Facebook profile by telling them that it appeared they were committing the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and included this link so they could educate themselves and not make that mistake anymore.

I’m cringing as I write this. Yeah, I really did that.

If you’re using Latin during a debate, you probably sound like a jerk

If you’re using Latin during a debate,
you probably sound like a jerk.

You know what would have been better? I could have said something like this: “I want to understand your argument, but I’m not sure I do. What it sounds like you’re saying is that because this thing happened after this other thing, that the first thing caused it. Am I misunderstanding you? I don’t want to put words in your mouth.”

Do you see the difference? It’s not easy though. Easy is naming the fallacy. Hard, but better, is being able to think to yourself, “I believe he just committed the genetic fallacy,” and then thinking of questions to ask with an open heart that will help the person see the problem with their reasoning. You could ask, “I want to understand you. Can I ask a clarification question? It sounds like you’re implying that because this person is biased, their argument must be wrong. Is that what you’re saying?”

But to do that you really need to understand what the fallacies are, because that will better prepare you to ask the right kinds of questions when a fallacy is committed.

I know there are people reading this that are very skeptical of this entire idea because they like telling people about their fallacies. If that’s you, I want to challenge you with this question: does pointing out every logical fallacy help you to create an atmosphere of productive dialogue, helping you persuade the person you’re talking to, or does it merely serve to stroke your ego and make you feel like you’ve won?

As Trent said, I think this sounds more like what Paul is talking about in 1 Peter 3:15, to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you, BUT with gentleness and reverence.

You can watch the video below or download the MP3 version for more thoughts on recognizing logical fallacies, including a discussion on the most common fallacies pro-choice and pro-life people make.

Thanks again to my brother Timothy for giving me ideas that made this post a lot better than the first draft was.

Question: What are some other ways to graciously identify and respond to logical fallacies? I’d love to read your thoughts in the comments!


Josh Brahm is the President of Equal Rights Institute, an organization that trains pro-life advocates to think clearly, reason honestly and argue persuasively.

Josh uses speaking, writing and campus outreach to emphasize practical dialogue tips, pro-life philosophy, and relational apologetics.

Please note: The goal of the comments section on this blog is simply and unambiguously to promote productive dialogue. We reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, disrespectful, flagrantly uncharitable, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read our Comments Policy.

  • Pingback: Dialogue tip: responding to "you're a man, you can’t get pregnant!"()

  • Pingback: The best way to expose logical fallacies: don’t call them by name : Right to Life of Central California()

  • William Slagle

    If you are pro-life, you are not a nerd, but you are profoundly ignorant to the depth and breadth of the historical antecedents that made legal abortion a moral imperative. Here is an alternate solution to your logical fallacy concern: Do not argue a myopically envisioned, morally corrupt position. Are you implying that the United States Supreme Court would render a culturally pivotal decision that was replete with logical fallacies. Do you think your grasp of logic and law superior to the ‘poorly’ educated Supreme Court justices?

    • Guest

      Roe v. Wade is almost universally criticized by legal scholars for its logical fallacies. That includes pro-choice legal experts.

    • Nteger

      Are you implying that Dred Scott v. Sandford never happened?

    • Nathan Eddy

      “Do you think your grasp of logic and law superior to the ‘poorly’ educated Supreme Court justices?” …Appeal to Authority fallacy.

      • DreamingOfPan

        I don’t know your spiritual leanings, but I am curious if you think that also using the whole “it’s God’s law” argument is the same thing – the appeal to authority fallacy?

    • David Major

      What are those “historical antecedents”?
      How do historical antecedents ever justify murder?

  • freethinkingbill

    Is not a Christian giving logic advice to Christians similar to a Psychopath giving compassion and empathy advice to sociopaths. Yet, I can see it happening since both psychopaths and sociopaths are too blinded by their hate and arrogance to be aware of their laughingly obvious, yet intellectually crippling disability. Just as the evil, hate-bating, culturally digressing Christian are.

    • David Major

      No amount of name calling and hyperventilating on your part will ever change the fact that abortion is murder.

  • freethinkingbill

    I love that way you superstitious dolts put all or most of your energies into fighting our society’s progress.

    • Will Schryver

      Abortion and Christian opposition to it are nothing new. The second century Epistle to Diognetus says about Christians: “They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.”

      • Nacob Brawford

        That is what war is for.

        • David Major

          Whar ie terrible, but hardly the same thing as abortion.

    • David Major

      LOL! This is a hilarious comment considering the topic was logical fallacies.

  • Crystal

    Also, what sort of dishonesty are they referring to? If they ask me a question I feel very uncomfortable answering (more along the lines of privacy than not knowing something, I’m thinking) how can I get out of it without appearing dishonest?

    • I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying, “That question is pretty personal, and we don’t know each other that well yet. I’m not comfortable sharing that part of my life with you yet.”

  • Pingback: Responding to the "Pro-Choice" Argument: "You're a Man You Can't Get Pregnant" |

  • Maybe more than a little disgusted that I just used a pro-life blog post to help me argue in favor of feminism.

    • Hey, I’m all for everybody on all sides of an issue doing a better job avoiding and exposing logical fallacies in non-obnoxious ways. Glad I could be of help. :)

      (Don’t read this as me being snarky. I mean it! But I know how this can be lost in translation in text-only comments like this.)

    • David Major

      I’m disgusted that you’re disgusted that you learned something from a pro-life blog.

  • Erika

    I think it depends on the fallacy. Certain ones, like strawman, slippery slope, or moving the goal posts, are not conducive to any discussion. If I spend all day trying to defend myself from the strawman argument, I’ll never get anywhere. Better to call it what it is and remind them of my actual position. Same with slippery slope- there is no point in trying to discuss it down. Best to just call it as it is.