I appreciate good reasoning. If someone provides coherent reasons for their positions, even if I disagree with their conclusions, I cannot help but respect them. I like the proposal of cultivating “reason appreciation,” a term from critical thinking scholars Sharon Bailin and
.Reason appreciation involves a respect for reasoning based on an understanding of its nature, role and significance, and a recognition of its subtleties and aesthetic aspects. A full appreciation of reason has both cognitive and affective dimensions.
First-principles thinkers, autodidacts, sensemakers, and galaxy brains—if they have carefully thought-out arguments and are not spouting opinions with obnoxious certainty, they deserve respect. Yet there are others who can reason well, think quickly under pressure, and have a knack for spotting logical fallacies, but they proceed to weaponize these fallacies.
Philosopher
, known as the “logician of the left,” calls these individuals, who are almost exclusively male, “logicbros.” The original logicbros were online atheists1, often memetically represented as men with fedoras and neckbeards.
Logicbros will memorize fallacies and then spot them in casual conversations to make their interlocutor look foolish, aiming to appear as if they’ve won the debate, even when no formal debate has been agreed upon. Truth becomes a secondary consideration, and the value of understanding is nonexistent.
The verbal skills of logicbros can be impressive, but these skills are more of interest to aficionados of “debate appreciation.” To cultivate reason appreciation, I don’t believe that memorizing or spotting fallacies is necessary. However, it’s helpful to recognize when good reasoning is derailed, and I recommend being familiar with the following fallacies, which I frequently turn to for reference.
The Dialectical Fallacy
Definition: In a public setting, when the appearance of a dialectical exchange is upheld but transgressed, it is often because the goal is to make the opponent look bad and win favor with their preferred audience.
This "fallacy" was coined by philosophers Scott F. Aikin and Robert Talisse. While it’s not technically a fallacy in the classical sense of an "error in reasoning," it is an error in dialectical engagement. Such exchanges are often riddled with traditional fallacies like the "straw man fallacy" (distorting an argument to make it easier to refute) and its variations.
Recognizing dialectical fallacies is useful for understanding the kind of conversation you might be pulled into. Before engaging, it’s helpful to ask yourself: Is a dialectical fallacy likely to be committed in this conversation? If you’re up for a pseudo-debate—where your conversational partner pretends to engage with you but is really focused on making you look bad to impress others—then be prepared to perform accordingly. Otherwise, you can spot the fallacy and opt out, either by leaving the conversation or avoiding it altogether.
For more on this fallacy, listen to a previous exchange I had with Aikin here:
The Jingle-Jangle Fallacy
Definition: The erroneous presumption that two things are the same because they have the same name (jingle), or that two identical are different because they have different names (jangle).
Most disagreements are not errors in reasoning but issues of semantics. Many philosophically and politically contentious words operate under different definitions2, such as God, freedom, socialism, fascism, and racism. Philosopher David Chalmers calls these “verbal disputes” and offers a handy technique called "the method of elimination" to address them:
Identify the word that may be causing a verbal dispute.
Agree to avoid using that word for the rest of the conversation.
Restate your arguments without the word.
A verbal dispute exists if there is no disagreement after restating. If a disagreement remains, it indicates a more substantial or deeper dispute.
The Fallacy Fallacy
Definition: The assumption that an argument's conclusion must be false simply because it contains a fallacy.
If there’s only one fallacy to memorize, this is it. Once you spot this fallacy, it effectively neutralizes any fallacy-spotting tactics used by logicbros. When you point it out, the logicbro is left bewildered, making them absolutely helpless to whatever finishing move you choose.
In truth, while coherent reasoning is valuable, it has its limits. People can arrive at accurate truths through other means, such as guessing, copying, intuiting, and yes, even divine revealing. I believe the ability to reason well is worth pursuing, a lost art form that is underappreciated. However, pursuing it requires great humility. People who aren’t skilled at reasoning can sometimes (and often!) reach the truth more effectively than those who are good at it.
I recommend these three fallacies because the first enhances sensitivity to the relationships where reasons are formed, the second focuses on the words that shape reasoned arguments, and the third reveals the limits of reason itself. So, there you have it—the only three fallacies you need to know to start your journey toward appreciating reason.
I believe I've discovered an innovative (and provocative) approach to teaching reason appreciation. I'm open to working with a small, private cohort of three committed individuals over the course of a few months to teach this. If you're interested, feel free to reply to this message.
I suspect online atheists, sometimes known as militant atheists, are reacting to having been “church wounded,” a phrase I discovered this week during Tanya Luhrmann’s wonderful session at The Stoa. Being church wounded refers to the emotional and psychological hurt resulting from negative experiences within a church or religious community.
See my entry, “Based Definitions: A Philosophical Practice.” One needs to own their words to own their philosophy, and “based definitions”—definitions that are bespoke, resonant, and coherent—help with this.