Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
I received the sweetest email from a listener last week that I wanted to share on today’s episode, this one is from Hannah: “Dear Ms. Kathy,I love your podcast so much! It has helped me in so many ways to understand other people’s biases and not make mistakes in my own logic. You have a way of speaking and describing things that lets me understand very easily. Keep up the good work and please never stop the podcast! I would be so sad if you did that! P.S. I love how you tell us how to identify the specific fallacy you talked about in that episode at the end, however, I was wondering if you could also tell us how to respond to someone who uses the fallacy. Thanks!”
Ok, Hannah, you have totally made my day! Thanks a million for writing in, and for listening! I’m so glad you enjoy the podcast & are learning from it! Trust me, I have no plans on stopping anytime soon…the need for good thinking is too great! And, I appreciate your question about how to respond to someone who uses a fallacy in conversation! I have had that question a few times now and am planning an episode that will discuss how to do that soon, so be watching for it!
I am super excited to have a new sponsor for the podcast, CTC Math. I know a lot of you are homeschoolers, or are considering homeschooling, and one of the big questions new homeschoolers have is about math…how can I teach my child math, what if I’m not good at math myself, etc, etc. I’m a homeschool mom, so trust me, I get it! CTCMath specializes in providing online video tutorials that take a multi-sensory approach to learning. Creative graphics and animation synchronized with the friendly voice of internationally acclaimed teacher Pat Murray makes learning math easy and effective. The lessons are short and concise to help your child break down concepts and appreciate math in a whole new way. Visit C-T-C-math.com today to start your free trial, that's C-T-C-math.com. I’ll also put the links in the show notes.
Ok, guys, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy, the Ad Hoc Fallacy. The Ad Hoc Fallacy happens when someone makes a statement or explanation purely for the sake of saving an argument or hypothesis from being shown to be wrong. It’s when someone uses a hasty or unsupported explanation to rescue an argument that’s being challenged or shown to be false. So you may have guessed that Ad Hoc is a Latin phrase, and you’d be right. Ad Hoc means “To this” and it refers to the idea that the person is adding an argument to what they’re saying, even if the argument being added isn’t substantiated.
Interestingly, the Ad Hoc fallacy isn’t technically a fallacy because it’s not an actual argument, but it’s still classified as a fallacy, and you have to be on the lookout for it just like you would for any other fallacy. Sometimes, you may hear it called an Ad Hoc Rescue.
Here’s an example of what this can sound like: A brother & sister are talking about the Christmas gifts they’re hoping to get from their parents. The little boy says, “I know Mom & Dad are going to get me a puppy for Christmas!” His sister replies, “They’ve literally told us we’re not getting a puppy.” The brother says, “I know, but they’re just saying that so they can fool us.” To which his sister says, “Actually, they said we’re not getting a puppy because mom is allergic to dogs and it would make her really sick.” And the poor, hopeful brother replies, “They’re just saying that so it’s an even BIGGER surprise on Christmas morning!”
Ok, can you see the argument the brother is creating here? He has no evidence to support his belief that he’s getting a puppy for Christmas, and even when he’s presented with evidence to the contrary, he comes up with additional reasons why he refuses to let go of his belief.
The reason people commit Ad Hoc arguments is because they really, really believe something and want it to be true. So, when they’re presented with evidence to the contrary, they come up with reasons why their believe *could* be true, whether there’s any evidence to support it or not.
Here’s another example of how an Ad Hoc argument may show up: Let’s say someone believes that the earth is flat. When they’re confronted with scientific evidence that the earth isn’t flat, but is round, this person gets flustered then says, “Well, the curvature of the Earth is an illusion created by NASA!” But do they have any proof that NASA is creating illusions of what the earth looks like? This explanation is Ad Hoc because they are not based on any evidence and the person who is using it is doing so to in order to save their belief that the world is flat.
Or, how about this example: Two friends are at a soccer game, each rooting for different teams. Bob says his team is going to win. His team ends up losing, but the reason they lost is because one of the other team’s goals came from a controversial referee decision. Rather than accepting defeat Bob argues that his team SHOULD have won if the ref had been fair. In reality, Bob needs to just accept the fact that his team lost.
So, if someone is committing an Ad Hoc error, the question to ask yourself or them is this: “What evidence is there to support your claim?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
