A Philosopher's Blog

Also Known as: Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force, Ad Baculum

Description:

The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy in which something that is intended to evoke fear is substituted as evidence for a claim. It has the following pattern:

 

Premise 1: Y is presented with the intent to invoke fear.

Conclusion: Therefore, claim X is true.

This reasoning is fallacious because the feeling of fear does not provide evidence for a claim. While lacking in logical force, this fallacy can have considerable psychological force because fear is a powerful emotion and can be effective in bypassing reason. People also can see their fear as self-justifying: if I am afraid of X, I must have a good reason to be afraid. But people can obviously be afraid for bad reasons or no reason at all.

Fear is also an effective persuasive tool because a person’s fear can easily be shifted to an unrelated target. Politicians often make use of this feature of fear, in some cases shifting justified fear to an unwarranted target. For example, it does seem reasonable for some American workers to be afraid they will lose their jobs because of business decisions beyond their control. But politicians can shift this fear towards unrelated targets, such as migrants.

While this fallacy can be used in ignorance, it is commonly used in bad faith. Someone using it might exaggerate or lie to create fear and knowingly use this fallacy. They are also likely to make use of stereotypes, biases, and prejudices. This is a common tactic in politics. For example, a politician might invoke fears that migrants are diseased, job stealing criminals to “prove” that their immigration plan should be accepted.

While this fallacy can be as crude as a “believe or you get hurt”, it can also be more subtle. Advertisements, for example, often make use of scare tactics. For example, a commercial for a home security system might attempt to scare potential customers by presenting a mother and daughter at home, suddenly being menaced by a scruffy looking intruder. The intent is to offer fear as a reason to buy their security system. But, of course, this invocation of fear does not prove that you should buy their product.

Perhaps the most subtle examples involve personal grooming products. For example, a commercial for hair coloring might show a grey-haired man walking a woman to her door after a date. He asks if he can come in for some “coffee” and she declines. The scenario runs again in the commercial, but this time the man has purchased and used hair dye to hide his grey. He is then invited in for some “coffee.” The message of fear is clear: if you have grey hair, you must buy their product or you will home alone “making your own coffee.” But, of course, this is just scare tactics.

As with some other fallacies, it is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (evidence) and a prudential reason (motivation) to do something. A rational reason to believe is evidence that logically supports a claim. The Appeal to Fear provides no rational reason to accept a claim.  A prudential reason is a reason to act. Something that invokes fear can provide a prudential reason to do something. For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your dean because the son threatens that they will make life tough for you. However, this does not provide evidence for the claim that the son deserves to pass the class.

Being an emotion, fear is not itself a fallacy. There are also cases in which a claim can evoke fear while also providing a good reason to accept or reject a claim. However, the feeling of fear is not evidence; it is just the case that a claim can both serve as evidence and invoke fear. For example, if you were about to go for a swim and you were warned that crocodiles had just been seen in the area, then you would probably feel some fear. But you would also have a good, non-fallacious, reason to stay out of the water.

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is to remember that the feeling of fear is not evidence, nor are threats. While there can be prudential reasons to act based on scary things, the invocation of fear is not proof. Since fear is often driven by biases and stereotypes, it is wise to be especially on guard in such cases. To avoid mistakenly thinking the fallacy has been committed, also keep in mind that something can both invoke fear and serve as evidence for a claim.

 

Example #1:

“You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I’d like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I’ll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He’s your dean, by the way. I’ll see you later.”

Example #2:

“I don’t think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous, and you’ll put your eye out. Now, don’t you agree that you should think of another gift idea?”

Example #3:

“You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.”

Example #4:

“You shouldn’t say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it.”

Example #5

Mike: “So, I’m looking at pickup trucks.”

Salesperson: “We have an excellent selection.”

Mike: “This one looks interesting, can I test drive it?”

Salesperson: “Certainly.”

Mike, after test drive: “This seems like a good truck.”

Salesperson: “I’ll get the paperwork.”

Mike: “Wait, I still want to look at some other brands. But if they aren’t as good, I’ll consider coming back.”

Salesperson: “If you don’t buy it now, I can’t guarantee there will be one available when you return.”

Mike, looking at a lot packed with trucks: “I’ll take my chances.”

Description: As a rhetorical tactic, Some of My Best Friends Are is to attempt to refute an accusation of bigotry or prejudice against a group by claiming to have a positive relationship with a member of that group. As a fallacy of reasoning, the error is to infer that such an alleged relationship proves that a person is not bigoted or biased against that group. The generic form of the fallacy is as follows:

 

Premise 1: Person A says or does X, which seems to be bigoted or prejudiced against Group G.

Premise 2: Person A claims they have a positive relationship with a member of Group G.

Conclusion: Person A (or X) is not bigoted or prejudiced against Group G.

 

This is fallacious because even if a person does have a positive relationship with a member of a group, it does not follow that they, what they said or what they did is not prejudiced or bigoted.

Probably the best-known use of this fallacy is when someone responds to an accusation of racism against Black people by asserting that some of their best friends are Black. This fallacy is also used in cases of sexism, such as when a man claims that they, what they said or what they did cannot be sexist because they have a daughter, a wife, or a mother that they love.  Naturally, it would also be a fallacy if a woman asserted that they, what they said or what they did cannot be sexist because they have a son, a husband, or a father that they love.

Since this reasoning lacks logical force, it relies on psychological force. This fallacy can easily occur in good faith when a person honestly believes that their positive relationship with a member of a group means that they are not prejudiced against that group. In such cases, a person might do or say something that is bigoted out of ignorance. While sorting out the ethics of such ignorant and unintentional bigotry is certainly worthwhile, it is still bigotry. As such, the fallacy would still occur in such cases.

This fallacy is also used in bad faith in varying degrees. People are complicated and a person can sincerely have a positive relationship with a member of a group while also being prejudiced against that group. Slave owners often claimed to love or care for their slaves, and some of them might have been sincere while also seeing the slaves as property. A sexist can love their spouse while also thinking of them as inferior. People can, of course, also lie about such relationship being positive and thus engage in multiple acts of bad faith when using this fallacy. But whether the claim of a positive relationship is sincere or a calculated lie, the reasoning is still flawed.

Defense: To avoid inflicting this fallacy on yourself, the main defense is to be aware that even if you do have a positive relationship with a member of a group, this does not entail that you cannot be or do or say something bigoted. In this case, honest assessment is the best defense. To avoid falling for the fallacy when it is used against you, the main defense is keeping in mind that even if a person does have a positive relationship with a member of a group, this does not entail that they cannot be a bigot or that what they said or did is thus not prejudiced.

As always, sorting out whether the person using the fallacy is acting in bad faith can be useful is reducing its psychological force. This involves assessing whether they do have such a positive relationship and whether or not they are knowingly using this tactic.

Example #1

Governor: “I know those college photos of me in blackface look bad, but I assure you I am not a racist. I grew up in a diverse town and had black friends as a kid. When I went to college, I had black friends. I have black friends now and many of my fellow Democrats are black.”

 

Example #2

Reporter: “Senator, there are critics who say that your bill is sexist and will hurt women in many ways.”

Senator: “Name one way this bill will hurt women.”

Reporter: “Well, the critics say it cuts funding for programs like WIC and redefines sexual harassment so narrowly that…”

Senator: “Well, I say to my critics that I love my wife and two daughters. How could a man who loves his daughters so much be a sexist? Or do anything to hurt women?”

Reporter: “Well, your critics say you could do that by passing this bill.”

Senator: “You lame stream media are the real problem.”

 

Example #3

Diocletian: “We need to remove the Christians from the army as part of my Make Rome Great Again plan. Plus, I have many ideas, such as dealing with those Manicheans.”

Dionysus: “That seems a bit prejudiced.”

Diocletian: “Nonsense! Some of my best friends are Christians. In fact, my favorite slave is a Christian.”

Dionysus: “So why remove them from the army?”

Diocletian: “All part of restoring the glory of the empire.”

Also Known As: You’re the Racist!

Description:

The Accusation of Racism is a rhetorical tactic in which a critic of bigotry is accused of being the real bigot. In most cases, the bigotry is racism and the rhetorical response to criticism is an accusation that the critic is the real racist. When this mere accusation of bigotry is taken as evidence for a conclusion, then a fallacy of reasoning has occurred. It has the following general form:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about bigotry or an (alleged) bigot.

Conclusion: Person A is a bigot because of C.

This is fallacious reasoning because it does not follow that a person is a bigot merely because they have criticized bigotry or an (alleged) bigot. This error can be illustrated by using an analogy to corruption:

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about an aspect of corruption or an (allegedly) corrupt person.

Conclusion: Person A is a corrupt person because of criticism C.

 

Being critical of corruption or a corrupt person does not make you corrupt. While a corrupt person could be critical of corruption or another corrupt person, their criticism is not evidence of corruption. Likewise, being critical of bigotry or an (alleged) bigot does not prove that the critic is a bigot.

A variant of this fallacy is aimed at fallaciously refuting the criticism through an accusation that the critic is the real bigot. It has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about bigotry or an alleged bigot.

Premise 2: Person A is a racist because of C.

Conclusion: Criticism C is false.

 

This is essentially a version of an Ad Hominem attack: even if A is a bigot, this has no bearing on the truth of C. Another analogy to corruption shows the error in this reasoning.

 

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about an aspect of corruption or corrupt person R.

Premise: Person A is a corrupt person because of C.

Conclusion: Criticism C is false.

 

This is bad logic. If it were not, anyone who criticized corruption would always be wrong and this would be an absurd result.

A third variant of this fallacy is used to argue that an (alleged) bigot is not a bigot:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about (alleged) bigot B

Premise 2: Person A is a bigot because of C.

Conclusion: B is not bigot.

 

This is bad reasoning because even if person A were a racist, it would not follow that B is not. Once again, consider an analogy with corruption:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes criticism C about corrupt person B.

Conclusion: Person A is a corrupt person because of C.

Conclusion: Person B is not corrupt.

Again, the badness of this reasoning is evident: if it were good logic, any accusation of corruption would be automatically false. Despite the fallaciousness of this sort of reasoning, the tactic is commonly used and is often appealing to some people. Given that it has no logical force, it must gain all its influence from psychological force. I will offer a brief explanation of this using the specific context of racism.

In the United States criticisms of racism and allegations of racism most commonly involve white Americans. For example, criticisms of white supremacy obviously are aimed at white Americans. As another example, criticism of historical racism in America usually focuses on slavery and the mistreatment of the indigenous people. Since American slavery was almost exclusively white Americans owning Black Americans, these criticisms will tend to be aimed at white Americans. In the case of the mistreatment of indigenous people, this was mostly inflicted by white Americans. Today, most criticisms of racism focus on racism on the part of white Americans because this is the most common form of racism. As you might have noticed, the pattern is that most criticisms of racism and alleged racists in the United States will be aimed at white Americans. While this is obviously because in the United States most acts of racism are done by white Americans and most racists are white, this can also be exploited to fuel this fallacy. I will use the example of teaching about slavery to illustrate how this fallacy is often used.

As noted above, American slavery was predominantly a system in which white Americans owned Black people. As such, criticisms of slavery will focus primarily on the white slave owners. Operating in bad faith, a person can claim that such criticism is racist because it is criticism focused on white people. That is, it is falsely claimed that white people are being attacked simply because they are white. The fallacy is then used by attacking the critic as being “the real racist” and the criticism is rejected, etc. However, criticizing white slave owners is not criticizing them because they are white, it is criticizing them because they owned and abused slaves. That this is not racist can be shown with, as you probably guessed, a look at corruption.

Like most Americans, I learned about various infamous scandals and corruption cases, such as the Teapot Dome Scandal in grade school. My teachers were, I recall, generally critical of the corrupt behavior. But it would be absurd to say that this proved that the teachers were corrupt and that their criticisms were incorrect. The matter of corruption can also be used to directly illustrate how criticism of white people is, obviously enough, not automatically racist.

These historic scandals and corruption cases mostly involved white Americans for two obvious reasons. The first is that white Americans were the majority. The second is that white Americans dominated government and business positions in which they could engage in such scandals and corruption cases. As such, criticisms of these past corruption cases would predominantly criticize white Americans. But it would be absurd to infer that such criticisms must be racist, and that the critic is “the real racist.” This is because the criticism for this corruption is not because those involved were white, but because they engaged in corrupt behavior. Likewise, when someone is critical of a racist for being racist, this does not entail that the critic is a racist. It also does not entail that the critic is not a racist, but evidence for that would be needed.

This fallacy does sometimes get a psychological boost from the way the criticism is expressed and in some cases the criticism can sound bigoted. For example, if a critic of white supremacy seems to be casting all white Americans as white supremacists, then this can create the impression that the critic is bigoted. And this impression might be true. But, as noted above, even if a critic is a bigot, it does not follow that their criticism is not true. I certainly do not deny that any human can be bigoted.

As another example, criticism might be so harsh and confrontational that people can feel that they are being attacked simply for being in a group, even though this is not the case. As a final example, people belonging to the same group as those being criticized can also feel that they are being attacked, even if the critic is careful to differentiate between bigots and non-bigots and is careful to use neutral language. These feelings are usually encouraged by those using this fallacy.

This fallacy can be used to start a Red Herring by switching the issue from the original criticism to the new issue of whether the critic is a bigot.

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is like the defense against any Ad Hominem: even if the critic is a bigot, it does not disprove their criticism. When this fallacy is used in bad faith, which is usually the case, it can also be useful to expose this bad faith usage. While arguing in bad faith does not prove that a person’s claim is false or that their argument is bad, exposing bad faith can help undermine the psychological force of a fallacy. But since this fallacy is often used as Red Herring to switch to the issue of whether the critic is a bigot, you also need to be on guard against that tactic.

Example #1

Teacher: “The practice of slavery in the United States was characterized by predominant white ownership of Black enslaved persons. In general, this practice was brutal and…”

Student: “Were there any Black slave owners?”

Teacher: “Yes. The best known is probably William Ellison.”

Student: “If there were Black slave owners, why are you being so critical of white people?”

Teacher: “I am being critical of slavery. But, as I said, most slave owners were white and the enslaved people were Black. Ellison didn’t own white people.”

Student: “Well, I’d say that you are the real racist.”

Teacher: “Why?”

Student: “Because you are attacking white people.”

Teacher: “I’m being critical of slavery. I think Ellison was also wrong to own people.”

Student: “That is just what a racist would say when accused of racism. I’m going to tell my parents you hate white people.”

Teacher: “I don’t get paid enough for this.”

 

Example #2

Ted: “White Americans are the worst. I mean slavery…”

Karen: “Hey, I never owned slaves!”

Ted: “I know, but you benefit from the legacy of slavery. Also, you benefit from white privilege.”

Karen: “Hey, I worked for my degree, and I work hard at my job.”

Ted: “I’m not denying that, although the fact that your dad is the CEO of the company where you work probably didn’t hurt. And that company has quite the history of racism.”

Karen: “Well, I think you are the real racist! Attacking me for being white!”

Ted: “What about my criticisms?”

Karen: “Like I said, you are the real racist. I am the victim here.”

 

Example #3

Tucker: “These so-called feminists are attacking men for their alleged toxic masculinity. This is just attacking men for being men. So, who are the real sexists? The women. So much for all their toxic masculinity talk. Also, you should tan your testicles.”

Description:

The Steel Person fallacy involves ignoring a person’s actual claim or argument and substituting a better one in its place.  It has the following pattern:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: Person B presents Y (a better/stronger version of X).

Premise 3: Person B defends Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X is true/correct/good.

 

This is fallacious because presenting and defending a better version of a claim or argument does not show that the actual version is good. A Steel Person can be effective because people often do not know the real claim or argument being defended.

The fallacy is especially effective when the Steel Person matches the audience’s positive biases or stereotypes. They will feel that the improved version is the real version and accept it. The difference between applying the principle of charity and committing a Steel Person fallacy lies mainly in the intention: the principle of charity is aimed at being fair, the Steel Person fallacy is aimed at making a person’s claim or argument appear much better than it is and so is an attempt at deceit.

As such, this fallacy should not be confused with correctly using the principle of charity. This principle requires interpreting claims in the best possible light and reconstructing arguments to make them as strong as possible. But this must be tempered by the principle of plausibility: claims must be interpreted, and arguments reconstructed in a way that matches what is known about the source and the context in which they were made. The principle of charity is aimed, in part, at avoiding the Straw Man. The principle of plausibility is aimed, in part, at avoiding the Steel Person.

A variant of this fallacy is the Just Kidding fallacy. This occurs when a person asserts, in bad faith, that the claim or argument they or someone else made was just a joke or that they were not serious. The target is supposed to believe this and thus accept that the person’s professed belief is better than what their claim or argument indicates. This is often used in response to being embarrassed or called out for (typically for bigotry or prejudice). This variant has the following form:

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: X receives a negative response.

Premise 3: X is claimed to be “just kidding” or a joke.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X does not represent Person’s A real view.

This is a type of Steel Man because turning the claim or argument into an alleged joke makes it appear better than the person’s claim or argument taking as being serious. While people do make jokes that do not accurately represent their real views, it does not follow that just because a person (or their defender) claims they were joking that they really were. This tactic is often used when a bigot is recruiting; if they get a positive response, then they can escalate. If they face criticism, they can claim, in bad faith, that they were joking and maintain their cover. This tactic is also commonly used in response to the embarrassment that can arise from making a claim in ignorance or presenting a bad argument.

 

Defense: While this fallacy is generally aimed at an audience, it can also be self-inflicted: a person can unwittingly make a Steel Person out of a claim or argument. This can be done entirely in error (perhaps due to ignorance) or due to the influence of positive biases. The defense against a Steel Man, self-inflicted or not, is to take care to get a person’s claim or argument right and to apply the principle of plausibility. As with any fallacy, it should not be inferred that the conclusion of a Steel Person argument must be false. In fact, when someone makes a Steel Man they will often present a plausible claim or good argument. While the substituted steel claim or argument does not prove anything about the original, the substituted claim or argument should be assessed on their own merits and not simply rejected because they are part of a fallacy. In the case of the Just Kidding variant, the defense is to be on guard against people attempting to dismiss claims or arguments as jokes. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to know when a person is committing this fallacy since doing so requires knowing that they were not, in fact, joking. However, it is possible to use what you do know about a person to assess such claims.

Example #1

Reporter: “Was the President serious when he said that if ‘you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door’?”

Press Secretary: “First, the President was obviously joking when he made that remark. Second, what he meant by that remark is that a shotgun would be sufficient for home defense and therefore there is not a legitimate need for assault weapons, like the Assault Rifle-15.”

Reporter: “You mean ‘ArmaLite Rifle-15.”

Press Secretary: “Sure.”

Example #2

Reporter: “Was the President serious when asked if disinfectants could be used in COVID cures?”

Press Secretary: “Obviously he was just joking. He was being sarcastic.”

Reporter: “What about when he asked about using light to treat COVID?”

Press Secretary: “Also joking. He is such a kidder.”

Example #3

Ben: “Have you ever noticed how many Jews work in Hollywood? That explains a lot.”

Sheryl: “Like what?”

Ben: “Like how they are controlling the media. Ever notice how many Jews are bankers? International bankers?”

Sheryl: “That sounds antisemitic. I can see where this is probably going.”

Ben: “Hey, I am just kidding!”

Description:

This fallacy occurs when someone uncritically rejects a prediction or the effectiveness of the responses to it when the predicted outcome does not occur:

Premise 1: Prediction P predicted outcome X if response R is not taken.

Premise 2: Response R was taken (based on prediction P).

Premise 3: X did not happen, so Prediction P was wrong.

Conclusion: Response R should not have been taken (or there is no longer a need to take Response R).

The error occurs because of a failure to consider the obvious: if there is an effective response to a predicted outcome, then the prediction will appear to be “wrong” because the predicted outcome will not occur.

While a prediction that turns out to be wrong is technically wrong, the error here is to uncritically conclude that this proves the response was not needed (or there is no longer any need to keep responding). The initial prediction assumes there will not be a response and is usually made to argue for responding. If the response is effective, then the predicted outcome will not occur, which is the point of responding. To reason that the “failure” of the prediction shows that the response was mistaken or no longer needed is thus a mistake in reasoning.

To use a silly analogy, imagine that we are in a car and driving towards a cliff. You make the prediction that if we keep going, we will go off the cliff and die. So, I turn the wheel and avoid the cliff. If backseat Billy gets angry and says that there was no reason to turn the wheel or that I should turn it back because we did not die in a fiery explosion, Billy is falling for this fallacy. After all, if we did not turn, then we would have died. And if we turn back too soon, then we die. The point of turning is so that the predicted outcome of death will not occur.

A variation on this fallacy involves inferring the prediction was bad because it turned out to be “wrong”:

Premise 1: Prediction P predicted outcome X if response R is not taken.

Premise 2: Response R was taken based on prediction P.

Premise 3: X did not happen.

Conclusion: Prediction P was wrong about X occurring if response R was not taken.

While the prediction would be “wrong” in that the predicted outcome did not occur, this does not disprove the prediction that X would occur without the response. Going back to the car example, the prediction that we would die if we drove of the cliff if we do not turn is not disproven if we turn and then do not die. In fact, that is the result we want.

Since it lacks logical force, this fallacy gains its power from psychological force. Sorting out why something did not happen can be difficult and it is easier to go along with biases, preconceptions, and ideology than it is to sort out a complicated matter.

This fallacy can be committed in good faith out of ignorance. When committed in bad faith, the person using it is aware of the fallacy. The intent is often to use this fallacy to argue against continuing the response or as a bad faith attack on those who implemented or argued for the response. For example, someone might argue in bad faith that a tax cut was not needed to avoid a recession because the predicted recession did not occur after the tax cut. While the tax cut might have not been a factor, simply asserting that they were not needed because the recession did not occur would commit this fallacy.

 

Defense: To avoid inflicting this fallacy on yourself or falling for it, the main defense is to keep in mind that a prediction based on the assumption that a response will not be taken can turn out to be “wrong” if that response is taken. Also, you should remember that the failure of a predicted event to occur after a response is made to prevent it would count as some evidence that the response was effective rather than as proof it was not needed. But care should be taken to avoid uncritically inferring that the response was needed or effective because the predicted event did not occur.

Example #1

Julie: “The doctor said that my blood pressure would keep going up unless I improved my diet and started exercising.”

Kendra: “How is your blood pressure now?”

Julie: “Pretty good. I guess I don’t need to keep eating all those vegetables and I can stop going on those walks.”

Kendra: “Why?”

Julie: “Well, she was wrong. My blood pressure did not go up.”

Example #2

Robert: “While minority voters might have needed some protection long ago, I am confident we can remove all those outdated safeguards.”

Kelly: “Why? Aren’t they still needed? Aren’t they what is keeping some states from returning to the days of Jim Crow?”

Robert: “Certainly not. People predicted that would happen, but it didn’t. So, we obviously no longer need those protections in place.”

Kelly: “But, again, aren’t these protections what is keeping that from happening?”

Robert: “Nonsense. Everything will be fine.”

Example #3

Lulu: “I am so mad. We did all this quarantining, masking, shutting down, social distance and other dumb thing for so long and it is obvious we did not need to.”

Paula: “I didn’t like any of that either, but the health professionals say it saved a lot of lives.”

Lulu: “Yeah, those health professionals said that millions of people would die if we didn’t do all that stupid stuff. But look, we didn’t have millions die. So, all that was just a waste.”

Paula: “Maybe doing all that was why more people didn’t die.”

Lulu: “That is what they want you to think.”