In a foreign land, you are more susceptible to illogical arguments. Fight back with the tips in this guide.
Be wary of logical fallacy.
Travel is about moving beyond what’s familiar and into foreign territory.
Though the experience is more pronounced in jetting across borders, entering terra incognita can happen every day – striking up a conversation with a stranger, taking a different route to work, several days of rain turning your neighborhood into a lake.
All of these involve crossing boundaries of comfort for the “undiscovered country” beyond.
When your landmarks for reckoning are suddenly turned upside down, or everyone around you is heading in a direction you know is off-course, how do you get your bearings? What is your basis for making a reasoned decision?
Seeing the situation clearly is key to navigating the unknown. All travelers need to arm themselves with the intellectual tools to understand and deflect poorly constructed arguments.
Before you go storming the Himalayas in search of enlightenment, consider a slight detour to the kung fu training grounds for a class in Logic 101.
Introduction To Logic
Many think of logic as “that required course I could barely stay awake in.” The good news is that logic is much easier than most suppose, depending on how you look at it. The bad news is that it’s not always easy to practice.
The trick is to stay awake: sort fact from nonsense, watch for deception, look ahead to the next step, don’t get taken. When you get to a point where you can’t confirm a sound premise, use logic to “assert, deny, propose and refute.”
Most classes in logic start at or near the timeworn example of:
- All men are mortal
- Socrates was a man
- Thus, Socrates is mortal
This is already beginning to sound like math somehow. Building a clock from scratch seems a little dry, without having seen one that’s already running.
What you need are some sturdy examples of logic in action. So, here goes: the fallacies.
Formal Fallacies
You’ve got two kinds of fallacy: formal and informal. A formal fallacy means the argument itself is bad because it wasn’t “built” properly. Like this:
- Many people are beaten and robbed when they go to another country.
- Therefore, you will inevitably be beaten and robbed if you go to another country.
Attack fallacies at every turn.
This is called an appeal to probability. While likelihood exists for becoming the victim of a crime, it’s not certitude.
In fact, you won’t know the real potential until you start comparing numbers to each other: total number of travelers, region or nationalities in question, motive for the attack, etc.
The flaw is in the structure, not the proposition: “possibly P, therefore P.” But there is enough room in probability that an attack won’t happen, so the argument is not completely valid.
KIAAAI!!!
Wow, that felt good! Let’s try another move:
“If you’re not staying at a four-star hotel with air conditioning, a swimming pool and 500 channels, you’re having a crummy trip.”
Did you spot the flaw? It’s hidden, so let’s try a converse example:
“If you’re not sleeping in a tent, scrounging your meals at the complete mercy of the elements, you’re having a crummy trip.”
This one’s called a false dilemma. A dilemma, no matter what you’ve heard, is a troublesome choice between two and only two options. Creating a false dilemma assumes that no other choice exists, when in fact there may be a whole world of possibilities.
Travelers looooove talking about the so-called Traveler/Tourist Distinction, because there’s no other way to enjoy yourself other than the terms which provided them with their life-changing experience. Clearly, that’s not so.
Don’t feel bad if you’ve been zapped by this one – it’s quite common of late. Consider one of the most well-known examples, from one George W. Bush: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
SAAAIII!!!
One last formal fallacy. The next one is the nirvana fallacy.
“I wouldn’t mind practicing green travel, but what’s the point? It won’t completely eliminate global warming, so screw it.”
Nirvana fallacies are failures of comparison between the realistic and the unrealistic. Very similar to a false dilemma, it reduces a more complex argument into a simplistic one.
The mistake is made in relating a pragmatic approach to an idealized result, rather than a pragmatic approach to an improved result. To say green travel is futile because it doesn’t eliminate all pollution is like saying dinner is a waste of time since you’ll only be hungry tomorrow.
The fallacy is in dismissing a reasonably good attitude because it doesn’t grant unreasonably good outcome.
HWAAAKII-CHAAAAA!!!
You are not yet mighty, grasshopper. There are a few dozen formal fallacies, and slightly more informal fallacies – and it must be stressed, “as you practice, so shall you progress.”
Simply being aware of the fallacies isn’t the same as proficiency. Logic is how it’s combated, and the only way to accrue skill is to look for strong arguments or where they falter.
It’s not about being skeptical, but cautious. “Sort fact from nonsense, watch for deception, look ahead to the next step, don’t get taken.” Have you so quickly forgotten, pupil?
Stay awake!
Have you ever felt like you were pressured to go someplace or do something “illogical?” What are some travel decisions you’ve made that “seemed like a good idea at the time?” Share your thoughts in the comments!
About the Author
More By This Author
Related Posts
13 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Great article, I like how you have fun with it and slip in a couple of discrete commentaries…
↵ -
Great article! Loved the humour. As a student of Rhetoric, I think everyone benefits from some some critical thinking skills!
↵ -
Excellent! I casually studied logic and it has definitely helped with some arguments over time. If you see the other person is not open to reason, it’s better just to leave it. But I have gladly admitted defeat when someone gave me a logical argument I couldn’t punch holes through. Very applicable to travel and the many discussions we have on our path, thanks for the unexpected article!!
↵ -
I thought it was kind of a dopey article. You really strained the subject of logical fallacies when you try to apply it to travel. The traveller is in no more need of logical skills than anyone else. I don’t need to travel all the way to the Himalayas to find poor reasoning. I found a good dose of it right here on this website.
↵ -
Class, gather round. Mike is providing an example of the ad hominem informal fallacy (see the followup article to learn more), which he needs to shore up his remarkably narrow reading of my article.
Yes, logic is just as necessary in everyday life as it is in travel. Using travel to discuss logic (to many a dry subject) is like using cooking to understand ratios. OF COURSE you don’t need to bake for 20 people to learn about math, any more than you need an exotic trek to employ logic. Good catch, Mike – I am SO busted.
I can agree with one point from your otherwise bad-tempered comments: “The traveller is in no more need of logical skills than anyone else.” Again, I am stunned by the profundity of your insight. “Everyone could do with more logic in their lives, not just travelers.” Bravo, Mike!
But I have to ask: in light of the ad hominem drive-bys, the blanket statement applied to BNT based on poor comprehension, and your overall misunderstanding of the article’s gist, what is it that motivates logical skills in your life? Whatever it is, I hope you can go a little further next time. Good luck, Mike!
↵ -
“Class, gather around”…Give me a break. Someone could use a humility pill.
And that probably has a lot to do with why your article is so misguided. My impression was that you needed to write about travel, but you were having a hard time coming up with an idea, so now you’re forcing a subject that doesn’t really fit just so that you can have something to write about.
Enter stage left: white man’s burden. Your comment: “In a foreign land, you are more susceptible to illogical arguments. Fight back with the tips in this guide.” That’s arrogant and elitist: “Western civilization needs to bring to task the all irrational barbarians teeming around.” By making such a claim you are trying to provide plausible relevance to an otherwise overly strained topic. Without that, you haven’t established much of a connection between logic and travel, therefore your whole article is based on your oversized (if not racist) ego.
And throwing around big words doesn’t make your personality any more acceptable. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that ad hominem arguments are not in and of themselves fallacies. Not only did you fail to demonstrate a fallacy, you also were incorrect in claiming that it was ad hominem in the first place. That depends upon the argument, and considering that the argument at hand was your arrogant attempt to force a weak topic, I think it’s clear that what I said was very on point and relevant.
↵ -
“In a foreign land, you are more susceptible to illogical arguments. Fight back with the tips in this guide.”
I can’t remember whether it was me or my editor who wrote this lead. I can understand why it would bother you, but again: only if you take a narrow read of what’s really intended. Anyone in a new environment can get turned around – a new job, a new city, etc. There’s no claim of superiority, implied or otherwise. Why do you insist on reading something darker into this?
You seem more concerned with my humility than your inflamed sense of self-righteousness. You call my article dopey, and now I’m an elitist, an egotist AND racist? Right. No ad hominem there. So either the article is dopey because of the mood, or elitist because I use big words. What is your summary problem? Not sure who pooed on your birthday cake as a child, Mike, but it wasn’t me. If it helps, I’ll buy you another balloon.
Putting aside the namecalling, let’s get to the heart of your gripe. You claim I make no strong connection between logic and travel. I agree, there’s no greater or lesser relationship between logic and travel than there is between logic and, say, vacuuming. So what? What if a website devoted to used cars posted an article about fallacies you may run into when buying a car? Would you be this irate? Call them racists, maybe? Jesus, Mike – it’s is just a light intro to a subject people find intimidating. Can you be okay with this, Mike? Can you try, really hard?
In the spirit of the holiday, Mike – you win. Travel and logic have nothing to do with each other. It was wrong of me to introduce informal fallacies to people who may not know about them, and sheer arrogance to come up with examples where they may occur in unfamiliar environments. I’m very full of myself, and use big words when I’m not being “dopey.” This was a thin article at best. Whew! Glad to get that guilt off my chest. I’ll try not to be so “misguided” in the future.
Now that you’ve knocked over your anthill, is there anything else you’d like for Christmas?
↵ -
Actually, the editor (me) did write that opening. It does not mean “foreigners are more likely to use illogical arguments.” My intent was to relate that when a traveler is on the road, they are not in their element, and are more likely to fall prey to certain tactics that they would avoid back home.
↵ -
You need to stop, breath, think, evaluate. It’s not going to make much sense to you, if I have to do all that for you.
↵ -
Why can’t you just take responsibility for your words? You would have me believe that maybe it wasn’t you but your editor who said that. And further that it wasn’t people (foreign people mind you) that would be presenting these fallacious arguments, but rather inanimate objects like bad transmissions for instance. You admit that there is at best a weak connection between travel and logic, but you want me to believe that you were unaware of that from the beginning and didn’t seek to prop up the relevance of your article by belittling foreigners.
And after all that, you wonder why I might use the word “dopey”? And you wonder why I don’t appreciate your high and mighty attitude.
↵ -
I don’t have to convince you of a thing, Mike. This is no longer about the article anymore, I can’t take it seriously anymore. You’re clearly f***ing with me; I just can’t figure out which of my friends it is.
On the off chance we’ve never met and you’re really this motivated, I’ve gotta say: there’s a difference between arguing a point and just scoring damage, and there’s nothing but meanness involved in the latter. Either way, I’m out of it. You’re intent on making this personal, and I’m not interested. Kisses!
↵
