The Meaning of Red Herring, Ad Hominem, etc

Qualimath can be applied both to quantitative and qualitative mental processes or operations of thinking.

People sometimes use strange jargon like “red herring” or ‘Occam’s razor” when they try to disprove arguments that they don’t like. Such words then force the other side to do research on what those jargon mean. This can potentially waste a lot of time since there are a lot of fallacies.

These fallacies were merely created by academics for the sake of creating something, just as mathematicians create paradoxes, and theoretical physicists create useless theories because thinking is part of their job.

Socrates was aware of such useless thinking and so he classified the output of all logic into either truth, falsehood, or sophistry. I combined this with David Hume’s definitions to visualize them.

Truth vs Fallacy

Fallacy diagram — A fallacy is something that cannot be perceived by anyone in either the physical or metaphysical domains

A truth is a direct relation and equivalence of a metaphysical idea to a physical reality or manifestation.

A fallacy is a non-equivalence. “Unicorns exist” is true if they are perceivable by all and false if not perceivable.

physical_existence ≉ unicorn

A truthful logic leads to an idea that everyone can perceive or exist in reality.

A false logic directly leads to an idea that does not exist or cannot persist (just as some subatomic particles exist only for a few nanoseconds). These are called “formal fallacies”

Sophistry diagram — A sophistry is a logic that is true only to some people from a limited perspective. It is not true universally or all the time even if it is believed to be universal and constant

A sophistry is a train of ideas that leads to a fallacy. An example is: “The economy will grow fastest if capital gains taxes are abolished.” Sophistries are now called “informal fallacies”

Fallacies are easy to detect because there is no long train of ideas to confuse the mind. But sophistries are harder because of the long logic. In order to simplify them, common English words can be used instead of jargon below.

“Misdirection” instead of “Red Herring”

Red-herring diagram

A misdirection uses the natural relation of two related ideas to misdirect the logic onto a fallacy. An example is: “Children are our future, so we must raise taxes for a better future.”

(children : future) ≉ (raise taxes : future)

Solution: Crush the misdirection

“Specific Misdirection” instead of “Straw Man”

A specific misdirection is a misdirection that resolves into a specific idea. Examples are:

Children are our future, so we must raise taxes to fund all children’s programs.

(children : future) ≉ ((raise taxes : funding for children's programs) : future)

Solution: Same as above

“Fake Dilemma” instead of “False Dichotomy"

A fake dilemma forks away from the truth. Examples are:

“Children are our future. Either we give them everything they need or give them nothing at all.”
“You can either get married or be alone for the rest of your life”

(children : future) ≉ ((give all to children : give none to children))

Solution: Mention a third option

“Personal Attack” instead of “Ad hominem”

A personal attack goes outside of the ideas in the logic and goes to the other party instead, as an idea in itself. An example is:

“You’ve never had children so your advocacy against children’s programs is wrong.”

(you : no children) ≉ (opposition : children's program)

Solution: Re-divert back to the topic

“Circular Answer” instead of “Begging the Question”

A circular answer answers itself. An example is:

“Children are the future because children are the future.”

The real answer is arbitrary depending on the person’s mind.

(children : future) :: (children : future)

Solution: Ask why he feels that way

Circular Reasoning

A circular reasoning is a circular answer that goes through other ideas before coming back to itself. This is similar to how a specific misdirection is a long version of a misdirection.

An example is:

“Children are the future because we ourselves were children in the past”

(children : future) ≉ (we as children : past)

Solution: Same as circular answer

“Cutting to the Chase” instead of “Occam’s Razor”

Cutting to the chase goes direct to the cause and effect by disregarding superfluous ideas. All reasoning is based on feelings and so cutting to the chase goes to the more direct relation of cause and effect by taking into account the feeling of the other person.

Solution: Simplify his reasoning

“Doesn’t Follow" instead of “Non-sequitir”

Something is unconnected to an idea if it doesn’t naturally follow it. Unlike misdirection, the premise was not built up. Instead an idea is connected immediately to another idea.