Logical fallacies are unavoidable. Yet we often fail to recognize these deductive failures for what they are when we see them. Internet-based debates snowball into logically fallacious free-for-alls. Arguments deteriorate even more quickly if you're facing off against a belligerant know-it-all with strong words and weak arguments. For the autodogmatic, recognizing and calling out logical fallacies is important both introspectively as well as when discussing with others. Therefore, for my own benefit as well as for the benefit of any readers, I am going to review, with the help of Wikipedia, some common logical fallacies. The plan is to tackle one at a time over a period of weeks.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority, or argument from authority, is simply using the clout of a prestigious figure to sustain an argument.

For example, if I said, "Socialism must be the best system for society because Albert Einstein believed it so," I would be making an appeal to authority. It's not that Einstein was necessarily wrong (Though I certainly believe he is), rather he is not right simply because he was a genius. He may or may not be correct in his assertion; however, proving the assertion true or false is independent of the party making the assertion.

The appeal to authority reminds me also of the appeal to tradition, so I'm going to knock that one out, as well.

Appeal to Tradition

The appeal to tradition is just that: citing that something is right or wrong because it has always been assumed as so. Arguing that sending your kids to school is the best way to educate them is an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to common practice. Human behavior is never right simply because it is the way it has always been done.

The tie between the appeal to authority and the appeal to tradition is in a common conservative rub: the appeal to the founding fathers of the United States.

I'm going to pick on conservatives a bit here: I see them commit this error more than any other group. However, this combo-appeal, the appeal to the founding fathers, if you will, has been committed by many, if not most, American political groups. Citing the "founding fathers" as support for arguments regarding traditional Constitutional law or American values is moot: equating their actions with absolute truth is a logical fallacy. United States citizens are no more bound by the actions of their great, great grandfathers than they are bound by Washington, Jefferson, Adams or otherwise. Furthermore, it is nonsensical to pretend that a person unknown can bind you into a contract without action on your part.

Values, laws and rights are not true simply because a human legend said as much. Arguments stand or fall only on reason. If you disagree, here is an important question for you to ask:

Would you have a right to life and liberty if the Declaration of Indepedence had never been written?

The question is silly, but it begs other questions that I'll leave you to ask and answer.