In everyday life, we have discussions every day that usually take place without much emotion and are therefore “harmless”, for example when it comes to whether or not we should buy new butter. There are arguments (“We still have butter”) and counterarguments (“But the butter is on sale”) until either an agreement is reached or a compromise is made.
This is less easy with more complex topics because there are many different points of view on many topics, which sometimes even contradict each other, and it is almost impossible to remember all the facts for your own point of view. Then logical errors often arise: apparent arguments that are only there to weaken the position of the other person.
There is often no malice in this, but sometimes there is, but in any case discussions are derailed by logical errors, which is why it can be very useful not to dwell on them, but to counter them accordingly in order to get back to the core of the discussion to come back.
Below we would like to list the most common logical errors - the methods that can derail a discussion - and also tell you how best to deal with them!
Ad Hominem
Latin for “human-related”, this means when an argument refers to the other person directly as a person or to a source.
Examples
- “Vaccinations are safer than the disease.” – “Are you paid by Big Pharma?”
- “Humans are to blame for climate change” – “Scientists just want to make coal!”
- “Mimikama writes about it…” – “Pah, they’re definitely paid for by the government!”
So no argument is ever addressed directly; instead, the sources are discredited. In factual discussions, however, the source has to be completely irrelevant; a simple “It came from them, so it must be a lie” is usually not enough.
How you can counter this
Under no circumstances should you respond with an ad hominem, ___STEADY_PAYWALL___ this will only dissipate the actual discussion and you will admit that you have no arguments yourself. Instead, point out the irrelevance or simply ignore the objection and give another argument for your own position.
Anecdotes
Many of you are familiar with this argument that seems difficult to refute (which is the tricky thing about it): someone simply tells an anecdote to reinforce their own point of view.
Examples
- “After I took globules, my cold went away after 3 days, so homeopathy works!”
- “Really bad snowstorm, so where’s global warming now?”
- “My parents beat me too, but I still became something.”
- “My mailman’s sister’s cousin treats her depression with essential oils and it works, you should try it too.”
Important: Anecdotes are not data. One's own experiences are often perceived in a distorted way, are not subject to scientific control, are not typical of a given situation - and often people simply lie.
How you can counter this
Our brains are tricky; they often prefer emotions to hard facts.
So you have to be careful not to fall into this trap yourself. This also includes self-criticism and perhaps being wrong if you have an anecdote in your head. However, anecdotes should not be treated harshly, as this will only annoy the other person. Remember: People are convinced of this by the anecdote, so it is important to carefully state the official figures and facts without directly discrediting the anecdote itself, because no one likes to admit that they may be wrong.
False authorities
These pseudo-arguments appear very frequently, especially in the Corona pandemic: Statements from authorities are used to strengthen one's own arguments, but they are often not really or only rudimentarily qualified to do so.
Examples
- “This footballer doesn’t want to be vaccinated. As an athlete, he has a clue, so I won’t do that either.”
- “My cousin is a nurse and she says vaccines cause autism.”
- “A homeopath explains in a video that there are toxic substances in the vaccinations.”
- “This politician says climate change is a big hoax.”
Important: Arguments need evidence. Authorities are not evidence, especially if they are not authorities in the particular field. When it comes to viruses, virologists with years of experience should be trusted; a general practitioner is a nice source, but inferior in terms of qualifications. You prefer to trust a qualified car workshop with your car, not the hairdresser or the friend who sometimes works on his car.
You can argue with authorities yourself, but you have to be sure that it is an expert in this area who provides solid evidence for his statements, which are also confirmed by the majority of other experts in the area!
How you can counter this
From childhood, we rely on the statements of authorities, such as parents and teachers. It is only later that many people realize how much knowledge is actually “outsourced”: they do not remember the details of the facts, but only know that an important authority said it.
That's why you can get into the habit of evaluating authorities objectively: Does this doctor, this politician, this actor even have the specialist knowledge to be able to make such statements? Or are these statements made for other reasons, for example to sell the new book or for prestige.
Many people don't do this, so you should show understanding when someone argues with an authority that isn't really one: point out why this person isn't qualified to make such statements, switch back to facts instead of an “authority duel.” “Playing points out what a large number of experts say who contradict the false authority argument.
tradition
An argument that is often brought up in social questions: Since something has “always” been done that way or exists that way, it must be good.
Examples
- “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, which is why same-sex marriages should be banned.”
- “Astrology has been around for thousands of years, so there must be something to it.”
- “The ancient Chinese already practiced acupuncture, so it works.”
Fortunately, science always provides new insights, because not everything that is old or has always been done is good, otherwise we would still have terrible errors such as witch burning and bloodletting. However, it has been sufficiently proven that, for example, the stars have no influence on our character and needles in the body have at most a placebo effect.
How you can counter this
Traditions are not evidence, and evidence is the only thing you should rely on. So if someone comes with a tradition argument, ask yourself and the other person what the proof is that it should still work that way. The anecdotal argument (see above) like “Acupuncture worked for my brother-in-law” or “My horoscope in the newspaper is always right” is often used, but these are not proof.
Mini anecdote from me: During my training, I always read the wrong horoscope from the newspaper to my colleagues - and every time they were amazed at how true it was. Until they found out I was leading them on the wrong track for weeks. That made me less popular for some reason - rather than making them realize that horoscopes weren't actually a real thing.
Appeal to ignorance
A type of argument that you probably come across often: something is claimed, but it is hardly possible to refute the argument because, for example, there are no reliable data or facts.
Examples
- “The Greens are a party of pedophiles.”
- “Aliens have been living on Earth for thousands of years.”
- “In the United States, millions of people voted illegally.”
- “There are a lot of terrorists among migrants.”
These arguments are deceptive: they present a situation as fact even though there is little or no evidence or anecdotes to support it. For example, although there are terrorist migrants, that doesn't mean that this is true for the majority of people, and there were also invalid ballot papers in the USA and pedophile scandals in the Green Party's past, but these anecdotes do not prove universality.
How you can counter this
Here too, the motto is: Anyone who claims must prove! Kindly point out to the other person that an assertion alone is not proof - you don't have to prove that there are not very many terrorists among the migrants, but rather the other person has to prove concretely that this is the case - and that is often hardly possible. After all, there is no survey among migrants to find out who is a terrorist. Both sides are often difficult or impossible to prove, which is why it is often just a subjective perception, but not a fact - and you can tell your counterpart this diplomatically: whoever claims has the burden of proof.
Appeal to popular belief
A statement is true because many people believe it - or, conversely, untrue because many people do not believe it.
Examples
- “It must be a good book, after all it’s on the bestseller list.”
- “Millions of people use homeopathy, so it must work.”
- “Half of Americans believe in ghosts, so they exist.”
- “Everyone speeds here, so I shouldn’t get a ticket.”
This appeal can be quite convincing, which is because we are social creatures – if “everyone” likes something, it can’t be bad, right? But we are also often stupid creatures - just because many people do something doesn't mean it is good or right.
For example, a retired doctor's book is selling very well, but his explanations and approaches contradict all scientific standards. But he writes in such a captivating way that he seems credible to laypeople and is therefore successful - because without a little specialist knowledge his logical and medical fallacies are difficult to understand.
How you can counter this
I'm sure each of you has heard this saying from your parents: "If all your friends jump off the bridge, will you jump too?"
Those who answered "yes" hopefully now realize that It was a pure reaction of defiance: Of course we wouldn't have jumped in, we knew even then that that would have been stupid!
Today it is a little more complicated, but the principle is the same: just because a large number of people do or believe something does not automatically make it right or good. Here too the motto is (again): What evidence supports the claim, the action? Because as “herd animals” we very often tend to think that something that is objectively wrong or stupid is subjectively good and right - even though on closer inspection it is nonsense.
The reversal of the burden of proof
We already touched on some of these above (appeal to ignorance): Someone claims something and asks you to prove the opposite.
Examples
- “Climate change is a conspiracy, find out more!”
- “Vaccinations change our DNA. Prove to me that it’s not the case!”
- “Party XYZ only won through voter fraud, no one can tell me otherwise!”
The reversal of the burden of proof often occurs with extravagant claims that can often only be refuted with a lot of effort and specialist knowledge.
How you can counter this
Imagine a prosecutor claiming that you murdered someone. But he doesn't bring evidence to court, but rather demands that you prove your innocence (by the way, one of those errors that regularly appear in soaps and reality formats). Well... that's not how the legal system works, because anyone who claims has to prove it!
Always, always always, the person making a claim must provide sufficient evidence for it. That's why you can make it easy for yourself in such cases: If your counterpart doesn't provide any evidence, you can also reject the argument without evidence.
A surprising number of people have never heard of the burden of proof principle, so you can simply point out: "I don't have to prove myself wrong, please prove to me first that it is what you claim." Because that's how critical thinking works: No assertion without solid evidence.
The false cause fallacy
You probably come across this often too: it is assumed that a certain event caused a certain reaction, even though they are only close in time but have nothing to do with each other. Or in short: correlation is not causation.
Examples
- “My child was diagnosed with autism shortly after vaccination, so vaccinations cause autism.”
- "I haven't had a cold since wearing the healing crystal around my neck, so it's working."
- “These globules cure my headaches much faster than aspirin.”
To explain this, let’s first define the two terms of “correlation is not causation”:
- Correlation: A connection between two events that occur in close proximity
- Causation: The change of one event due to another event
But just because two events occur in close proximity does not necessarily mean that there is a connection between the two. For example, the rooster crows in the morning when the sun rises. But the sun doesn't rise because the rooster crows!
Often the occurrence of two events at the same time is just a coincidence, and both events have different causes. But because we like to find patterns in something, we mistakenly link the two events together.
Often only science can help us distinguish whether a particular event triggered another event. For example, it has been investigated very often whether globules really have a healing effect, for which control groups are needed and comprehensive data must be collected - but real evidence has never been found, only the knowledge that homeopathy does not work beyond the placebo effect.
With more personal anecdotes, such as the healing crystal around the neck, the psychology of the person must also be taken into account. For example, people who want to use it to prevent a cold often behave more prudently in general and live healthier lives. Globules can also actually help against headaches if you firmly believe in it: the psyche creates an expected effect that does not exist medically, which is why the headache disappears simply through relaxation and expectation.
How you can counter this
You also have to realize that correlation does not automatically mean causation, so you should also be self-critical about things that you believe in more or less. Do I really play soccer better because I wear my lucky socks? Or is it just because it makes me feel more confident?
Depending on the statement, you should not come at the other person harshly with “correlation is not causation,” but rather respond to the statement carefully and encourage the other person to think for themselves. For example, the “vaccinations cause autism” example can be refuted by saying that the unfortunately widespread fallacy is based that was in the media at the time, but has already been refuted many times and exposed as a fraud.
The straw man argument
The other person distorts or misrepresents their own arguments in order to make them easier to reject.
Examples
- “We should eat less meat for many reasons.” – “Aha, so you want us all to become vegetarians??”
- “We should simplify and better regulate our migration system, but we don’t need a wall around Europe.” – “Aha, so you want terrorists to overrun our country??”
- “I hope that it will soon be possible to have our children vaccinated.” – “So you want to poison all children??”
The original statement is therefore reinterpreted as something that was not actually said; a “straw man” has been built, so to speak, which the other person can easily set on fire, figuratively speaking.
How you can counter this
Sometimes the straw man argument is used unintentionally, but often out of pure emotionality and malice. Under no circumstances should you go into this, but instead point out to your counterpart that you did not claim this at all and point out the differences between your real argument and the straw man argument.
Conclusion
On many topics, discussions become emotional at a certain point, and then the logical errors listed above usually arise. We hope that the tips will help you get a discussion back on track.
And if, with the best will in the world, this doesn't work, you shouldn't allow yourself to make logical errors, but simply leave the discussion. Because often the other person cannot be convinced even with the best arguments - because no one likes to admit that they may be wrong.
Basic source: Thinking is Power
Also interesting:
So many arguments are misleading because there is simply a lack of basic knowledge about chemistry. So here are a few simple chemistry facts. 5 simple chemistry facts to know before discussions
Note: This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic.

