## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Common reasoning errors**: Systematic mistakes in argumentation that undermine evidence-based educational discussions > - **Avoid character attacks**: Focus on evidence and arguments rather than personal qualities or popularity > - **Recognise false choices**: Educational debates often present false dichotomies when multiple approaches may be valid ## Definition **Logical Fallacies**: Errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument, commonly encountered in educational debates and policy discussions (Walton, 2008). ## Overview Educational debates may involve logical fallacies: systematic errors in reasoning that affect productive discussion (Walton, 1995). These fallacies can feel persuasive: dismissing research because the researcher is "inexperienced" (ad hominem), assuming methods work because "everyone uses them" (appeal to popularity), or framing discussions as "traditional versus progressive" when multiple approaches may be valid (false dichotomy) (Tindale, 2007). Understanding common fallacy patterns helps teachers evaluate educational claims more rigorously. Whilst emotional considerations and expert opinion provide valuable input, they complement rather than replace systematic examination of research evidence (Hansen, 2015). Recognising fallacies supports [[What Research can you Trust|evidence-based practice]] in teaching decisions. ## Connected To [[What Research can you Trust]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Non-Explicit Teaching]] --- ## Common fallacy types in educational discussion Ad hominem fallacies dismiss arguments based on the character, qualifications, or motives of the person presenting them rather than addressing the argument itself. In educational contexts, this might involve saying "You're inexperienced, so your point about explicit teaching is invalid" instead of examining the presented evidence. Evaluating arguments on their evidence and logic matters regardless of who presents them. Misrepresentation fallacies distort opponents' arguments to make them easier to attack. A strawman argument might respond to explicit teaching recommendations by saying "We need inquiry-based learning," implying that explicit teaching eliminates all inquiry when the original argument was about balanced approaches. False dichotomies present two choices as the only possible options. Educational debates often use this framing; treating "explicit teaching versus non-explicit teaching" as mutually exclusive when effective education typically requires both approaches in appropriate contexts. Authority and popularity fallacies substitute reasoning with appeals to expertise or consensus. Appeal to authority asserts a claim is true simply because an expert believes it, without examining the evidence or reasoning. For instance, claiming "Dr. Smith advocates inquiry-based learning, so we should use it" bypasses actual evaluation of the supporting evidence. Appeal to popularity (or bandwagon fallacy) assumes something is true or beneficial because it is popular or widely accepted, such as "Everyone is using technology in the classroom, so it must be the best approach." Popularity does not necessarily correlate with effectiveness. Each method requires evaluation on its merits and evidence of success. Causation fallacies incorrectly infer relationships between events. False cause assumes that because one event follows another, the first must have caused the second. For example, "Test scores improved after implementing a new reading program, so the program must be effective" without considering other contributing factors. Multiple variables affect educational outcomes, and controlled research evidence is necessary to establish causation. Slippery slope suggests a minor action will lead to significant negative consequences without evidence supporting such progression. Claiming "If we allow calculators in primary school, students will never learn basic arithmetic" assumes inevitable decline without considering context and implementation. Emotional manipulation and hasty generalisation replace logical reasoning with emotion or limited evidence. Appeal to emotion manipulates feelings rather than using logical reasoning, such as "Think about how sad it is when students fail; we need to make the curriculum easier." Emotional considerations are valid but should complement, not replace, rational discussion of effective practices. Hasty generalisation draws broad conclusions from limited or insufficient evidence. Saying "My child struggled with explicit teaching, so it must be ineffective for all students" bases conclusions on a single example without considering representative samples and systematic evidence. ## Application to educational practice Recognising these fallacy patterns supports more rigorous evaluation of educational claims. When research is dismissed based on researcher background rather than methodology or findings, ad hominem reasoning undermines evidence-based discussion. Binary framings of "traditional versus progressive" teaching ignore the reality that effective education typically combines multiple approaches. Justifying practices because "most schools do X" requires stepping back to examine the actual effectiveness research. Emotional appeals claiming "students hate traditional methods" need consideration alongside evidence of learning outcomes, not replacement of it. Focus on evidence and logical reasoning rather than personal attacks or popularity. Avoid treating complex educational issues as binary choices. Distinguish between correlation and causation when evaluating programmes. Consider multiple perspectives while maintaining evidence-based standards. Understanding fallacy patterns helps teachers evaluate educational claims with greater rigour and ground decisions in systematic evidence rather than intuition, authority, or emotion. ## References Hansen, H. V. (2015). Fallacy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), *The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy* (Fall 2015 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/fallacies/ Tindale, C. W. (2007). *Fallacies and argument appraisal*. Cambridge University Press. Walton, D. (1995). *A pragmatic theory of fallacy*. University of Alabama Press. Walton, D. (2008). *Informal logic: A pragmatic approach* (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.