search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Logic Chopping

(also known as: quibbling, nit-picking, smokescreen, splitting-hairs, trivial objections)

Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.  Irrelevant over precision.

Pay close attention to this fallacy, because after reading this book, you may find yourself committing this fallacy more than any others, and certainly more often than you did before reading this book.

Logical Form:

A claim is made.
An objection is made regarding a trivial part of the claim, distracting from the main point.

Example #1:

John: Can you please help me push my car to the side of the road until the tow truck comes?

Paul: Why push it to the side of the road?  Why not just leave it?

John: It is slowing down traffic unnecessarily where it is.

Paul: Many things slow down traffic—do you feel you need to do something about all them?

John: No, but this was my fault.

Paul: Was it really? Were you the direct cause of your car breaking down?

John: Are you going to help me move this damn car or not?!

Explanation: You can see here that Paul is avoiding the request for assistance by attempting to make a deep philosophical issue out of a simple request.  While Paul may have some good points, not every situation in life calls for deep critical thought.  This situation being one of them.

Example #2:

Service Tech: Your car could use some new tires.

Bart: You have a financial interest in selling me tires, why should I trust you?

Service Tech: You brought your car to me to have it checked, sir.

Bart: I brought my car to the shop where you work.

Service Tech: So should we forget about the new tires for now?

Bart: I never suggested that.  Are you trying to use reverse psychology on me, so I will buy the tires?

Explanation: This kind of fallacy could easily be a result of someone with paranoid behavioral tendencies -- thinking the world is out to get him or her.

Exception: Of course, there is no clear line between situations that call for critical thought and those that call for reactionary obedience, but if you cross the line, hopefully, you are with people who care about you enough to tell you.

Tip: People don’t like to be made to feel inferior.  You need to know when tact and restraint are more important than being right.

References:

Byerly, H. C. (1973). A primer of logic. Harper & Row.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book