Daily Times

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name. Logical relates to something based on reason and logic, and fallacy is mistaken belief based on unsound arguments. Despite being a contradiction in terms, it has yet gained a universal currency. Every second tweet of President Trump is based on logical fallacy which no one minds. It is felt that speaking straight lie can bring the arguer to immediate disrepute, but if he mixes or sugar-coats it with some kind of logic, it becomes palatable as well as saves the arguer from a lot of embarrassment.

Logical fallacies are unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts. Whatever their origins, fallacies can take on a special life of their own when they are popularized in the media and become part of a national credo. It is a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. Logical fallacies, like all purely rhetorical devices, are used whenever one side in an argument seeks to win the argument without considering the actual consequences for the community in which they live. Politics is, and always has been, about influencing peoples’ behaviors and the motivation to do so is so strong that influential public figures will often resort to oversimplification, hyperbole, and logical fallacy simply to build support for their side. The trick is not knowing how fallacies are used but recognizing when they are attempted by others.

The Pakistani electronic media has played an important role at critical junctures in Pakistan’s development. It’s role in the earthquake campaign, flood relief campaign, judicial movement, activism on Hudood Laws etc. and as a government watchdog are highly commendable. With all its good deeds, Pakistan’s media hasn’t developed an healthy culture of political analysis. It mostly survives on the basis of creating political bewilderments and misperceptions. One confusion stems from another, and as a result no constructive debate takes place. Thus the attitude of facing truth, or giving in one’s point of view in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, or appreciating the merits of the other’s standpoint, or conceding one’s own weakness, has become well-nigh impossible. Some kind of crooked reasoning, or convoluted argument always comes in handy to the Pakistani politicians to stick to their stand however ludicrous or weak it may be. This sophisticated way of sticking fast to one’s view point is made possible by the use of what is called ‘logical fallacy,’ which is the order of the day, but is practiced in Pakistan in its worst shape.

Our political talk-shows are of poor quality and have degenerated into a medium for various kinds of logical fallacies. There is a lack of research, the arguments are full of whims and surmises, which mostly project misinformation and personal biases of the participants. One strong reason why our talk shows have become unpopular is that the participants are mostly politicians who instead of giving objective and rational answers to important issues of national importance, have to toe their party line, and would not accept a view based on pure logic and reason. Moreover there is a lot of wrangling, cross talk and noise by the participants so that the shows are often reduced into a cacophony of babbling voices and the discussion is hardly audible to the listeners. The anchor-persons do not know how to manage the speakers and steer the debate to its logical end.

I recount below some logical fallacies which are too commonly used in Pakistani politics. The most often indulged in is the Hominen fallacy, which means “personal attack on the opponent.” Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad-hominem replaces logical argumentation with attacking language unrelated to the truth of the matter. It often amounts to personal insults and mud-slinging etc. Instead of addressing the candidate’s stance on the issues, it focuses on personality issues, and speech patterns, and other features that affect popularity but have no bearing on their competence. Thus this fallacy is unethical, as it resorts to name-calling instead of addressing core issues.

A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyped and unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration

One of the most popular fallacies in Pakistani politics is what is commonly termed as Bandwagon Fallacy. It is based on the assumption of some people that something is true or good because other people agree with it. They also join this fallacy because it is also popular or because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look ‘popular,” important,’ or ‘successful.’

One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when people act together, they start displaying “mob mentality” which is the most dangerous instinct giving rise to behaviors which make the entire class of people ride on a wave of wild emotions by blinding them to see reason or rationality. The most current example of bandwagon fallacy in Pakistan is that a leader of a religious political party who lost his election to the National Assembly in the last General Election from his own constituency, and had barely 17 seats in the Parliament, has thrown the gauntlet at the government in power demanding resignation of the popularly elected Prime Minister. He has visibly no road map to steer the country out of its present economic ills, nor have any cogent programme to revamp the system of governance, yet in his ‘Azadi March’ from Karachi last week, people from everywhere have swarmed around him and boarded his bandwagon to reach Islamabad to hold the capital hostage till the resignation of the P.M. From this, one can imagine the tremendous mob or herd instinct of people who fall prey to the fallacy of this kind. No one had ever thought about the consequences which would follow if this march or dharna fails, nor asked their leader what radical measures he would take to salvage the country’s ills, if by a stroke of luck he happens to seize power.

Another fallacy relates to ‘Appeal to Ignorance’ (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance. Another kind of logical fallacy relates to ‘Hasty Generalization.’ It is a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it. A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyped and unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration. Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there is no single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence. Such examples of hasty generalizations we daily witness politicians indulging in their interviews or talk shows. It is a clever device not to squarely face a problem and to do some cool thinking about it, but throw it in the cold storage and let it putrefy there like a festering wound.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence