3 Ways Teaching Logical Fallacies Can Backfire
Logical fallacies are mistakes in arguments. Some examples are assuming that something is better because it is natural, which is the appeal to nature fallacy; presenting two options as mutually exclusive when they are not, which is a false dilemma; and misrepresenting someone’s argument, which is a straw man.
Learning about logical fallacies can help students recognize weak reasoning, avoid manipulation, and have more productive conversations. In my experience, kids can understand logical fallacies when they are taught through stories. Stories help make abstract ideas concrete and relatable. And kids love learning about the silly reasoning mistakes that even adults can make.
But gaining only a superficial knowledge of logical fallacies can do more harm than good. It can undermine our ability to communicate clearly and evaluate claims. I believe we should teach kids about logical fallacies, but it’s important to teach them carefully. Here are three risks to watch for.
Risk 1: Kids May Over-Identify Fallacies
When kids start to learn about logical fallacies, they get excited to spot them. They may start seeing fallacies all around them–in everyday conversations, on TV, on the internet. This is not surprising since fallacies can be found all over the place! However, not everything that sounds like a fallacy is a fallacy. This inclination to look for fallacies can be problematic if children start identifying every “fallacy-shaped” statement as a fallacy.
Most logical fallacies are informal fallacies. That means whether or not they are fallacies depends on the context. For example, it’s a fallacy called ad hominem when someone attacks the person who made a claim instead of addressing their claim. But that doesn’t mean every criticism of a person is a fallacy. If someone claims that they’re trustworthy, bringing up past examples of their dishonesty is relevant. When people have an incomplete understanding of the ad hominem fallacy, they may start thinking every personal attack is a fallacy.
When giving children examples of informal fallacies, we should also include examples of arguments that look like the fallacies but aren’t. For example, when teaching the slippery slope fallacy, we can include an example of a valid slippery slope argument: “You shouldn’t smoke even one cigarette because cigarettes are addictive, and this can lead to smoking many more.”
Risk 2: Fallacy Labels Can Make Conversations Less Productive
If you spend any time in social media comment sections, you’ve probably noticed that more and more people are calling out logical fallacies—yet it doesn’t usually improve the conversation. Often, people respond to an argument by naming a fallacy and acting as if that settles things. But a label alone does not explain what went wrong in the reasoning. If the other person has never heard of the fallacy before, it may sound more like a dismissal than an explanation.
Teaching logical fallacies should be combined with teaching productive conversation skills like active listening. Kids need to learn that spotting a fallacy is not the same as helping someone understand the problem. If they only say, “That’s a straw man” or “That’s ad hominem,” the other person may feel dismissed, especially if they do not already know what those terms mean.
Instead, kids should learn how to explain the flaw in the reasoning in everyday language. They should also learn to think about when it is helpful to bring up a fallacy at all. Sometimes naming the fallacy is useful. Other times, it is better to ask a question, clarify the other person’s point, or explain the issue without using the fallacy label.
Risk 3: Kids May Mistake Bad Arguments for False Conclusions
When someone uses a fallacy in an argument, that does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is wrong. It is possible to come to a true conclusion through flawed reasoning.
For example: “It is not safe to consume anything that has been changed from its natural state. Therefore, it’s not safe to consume antifreeze.” You may have identified the first statement as the appeal to nature fallacy. It’s perfectly safe to eat things that have been changed from their natural state–even cooking food is changing it. However, the conclusion that you should not consume antifreeze happens to be true.
Assuming that a flawed argument means a flawed conclusion is itself a fallacy. It’s called the fallacy fallacy. When teaching kids about logical fallacies, we should also teach them that a flawed argument does not entail a false conclusion. It only means the conclusion is not supported by that particular argument.
Conclusion
Logical fallacies are worth teaching. But the goal is not just to help students spot as many fallacies as possible or seem to win arguments. The goal is to help them think, listen, and communicate more carefully.
Critikid’s Fallacy Detectors course was built around this approach. Kids see logical fallacies in the context of animated stories, learn when “fallacy-shaped” arguments might not actually be fallacies, and watch characters patiently explain reasoning mistakes in a way others can understand. The fallacy fallacy will be covered in Fallacy Detectors Part 2.