Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
Let’s start off this episode like we always do: by reviewing a fallacy we covered earlier this season, Rationalization. If you want, you can hit pause real quick and try to remember what rationalization means! Rationalization happens when someone gives reasons for doing or believing something that aren’t REALLY their reasons for doing or believing it.
The question to ask yourself if you’re on the committing or the receiving end of the Rationalization fallacy is this: “What’s the real motivation here?”
If you want to review or hear more about this fallacy, go back & check out Episode 119.
Can I ask you a favor? If you’re enjoying this podcast, would you take a few seconds to leave a review wherever you’re listening? Or, would you hit the share button and share it with someone you think would also enjoy it? It means so much to me to hear how the podcast is helping you think better, and it helps more people find the show!
Alright, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy, the Fallacy of the Beard. I just had to do an episode on this one because I thought the name was funny! And because my husband has a big beard, so it hits close to home. So, the Fallacy of the Beard happens when someone argues that because there is no clear boundary between two extremes, there is no real difference or distinction between them. The idea is that if you have a man with a clean-shaven face, and they stop shaving, at what point is their face said to have a "beard"? We’ll say things like 5 o’clock shadow, scruffy, but what millimeter of hair takes it to a beard? This analogy highlights how difficult it can be to pinpoint the exact moment when a distinct change occurs due to the gradual nature of the change. Just as there's no clear moment when a man with a few additional hairs becomes a man with a full beard, some people argue that the absence of a clear boundary between two states or conditions means that those states are not actually different.
This fallacy is also called the Continuum Fallacy, and this might be an easier analogy to understand it: Imagine you have a bucket of sand. Now, you start taking out one grain of sand at a time. As you keep taking out sand, at some point, you might wonder, "When does the bucketful of sand stop being a bucketful of sand?" Someone committing the Continuum Fallacy is saying there's no real difference between having a bucket full of sand and having just a few grains left. Because there's no exact moment when the bucket changes from full to not full, they say that there's no difference at all between the two. But that's not quite right! Even though it's hard to say exactly when the change happens, there's still a clear difference between a full bucket of sand and a nearly empty one.
Let me give you a few examples of what the Fallacy of the Beard sounds like: Teacher A says, "I think we should have a rule that students can't use their phones during class." Teacher B replies: "But wait, what about when they're just checking the time quickly? That's not really using their phone for real. So, there's no big difference between having a phone out and not having it out." In this example, Teacher B is committing the Fallacy of the Beard. They're saying that because there's a blurry line between checking the time on a phone and using it for other things, there's no real difference between having phones out during class and not having them out at all. You can see the problem behind this thinking. Even if there's a bit of a gray area, there's still a clear distinction between using a phone for class-related activities and using it for unrelated things.
The problem behind the Fallacy of the Beard is that just because there isn't a clear and universally agreed-upon boundary doesn't mean there's NO distinction between the two extremes. The fallacy disregards the fact that even though there might not be a sharp dividing line, we can still differentiate between the two based on general understanding and context.
Here’s another example of what this can sound like: Jim and his Dad are having a conversation about lowering the legal drinking age. Jim says, "I think the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18. At 18, people can vote and join the military, so they should also be allowed to make decisions about alcohol, too." His dad replies, "But if we lower the drinking age to 18, then what's to stop people from saying it should be lowered to 16? After all, the difference between 16 and 18 is just two years, and it's not a huge gap." In this example, Jim’s Dad is committing the Fallacy of the Beard. He’s suggesting that because there's a two-year difference between 16 and 18 and no clear line that says exactly when a person is responsible enough to drink, that there's no real difference between those ages. However, just because there's a small gap doesn't mean the two ages are the same, and it doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them. This fallacy overlooks the fact that even though the ages are close, they still represent different levels of maturity and responsibility.
Question to ask yourself: “The difference may be vague & hard to define, but does that mean there is NO difference?” *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?”
