Specious Reasoning: How to Spot It and Stop It

Specious reasoning is any argument or analysis that has the apparent ring of truth or plausibility but is actually incomplete, deceptive, or even altogether fallacious. Such arguments are attractive because they are seemingly well-reasoned or factual. They can be deceptively persuasive. When an argument style is based on specious reasoning, it is called "Sophistry."

Specious reasoning typically accompanies arguments aimed at advancing personal agendas.

The apparent increase of speciousness in today's agenda-driven social discourse provided a big part of my motivation to write my recent book about truthfulness: Realville. How to Get Real in an Unreal World. Specious reasoning typifies all of the seven forms of untruthfulness in that it:

• Often relies on outright lies.
• May cheat others out of benefits by giving advantage to others.
• Provides a way to deceive others

• Encourages the specious person to deny their argumentation weakness and delude themselves and others.

• Pretends to have unwarranted stature and valuable argument.
• Withholds relevant ideas that would otherwise challenge assertions.

Source: Sebastian Herrmann, Smashwords

Different Specious Category Examples

Opinions Without Evidence

This category is probably the most common form of specious thinking, wherein opinions masquerade as fact. Technically, this does not involve flawed reasoning, because in the absence of factual evidence there is nothing available to structure an argument around. One just happens to have certain opinions. Facts be damned. Such opinions are typically formed from emotions that have been stirred by various forms of specious reasoning.

The disdain for evidence often arises as a natural consequence of anti-science or unappreciation of the nature of scientific thinking. Scientific thinking requires one to question even one’s own suppositions and opinions. Most assuredly, opinions need buttressing from objective evidence and verifiable truths. In a post-modern world in which everyone is allowed to have their own truth, such objective thinking is hard to find. Former Dean of Science at Texas A&M, Mack Prescott, once said to me, "Liberal arts courses are required in college because people think you can't be educated without them. I think that science courses should be required in college for the same reason."

Straw Man

This is a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. Sometimes it is called a "red herring." This is a change-the-subject strategy aimed at distracting a rhetorical opponent onto another subject.

Selective Argument

This is an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence. The argument that is presented is advanced in a way that precludes consideration of alternatives, especially ones that are more viable. Typically, the impression is given that there are no viable alternatives. Almost everyone advancing an agenda selectively omits facts and arguments that don't help their case. Always think about relevant things that people don't say.

Flawed Premise

The logic may be impeccable, but useless if the premise is flawed. This is a common rhetorical trap. Once you accept the premise of an argument, your positions have to be consistent with the premise, and you are thus constrained in what you can reasonably say about it.

Syllogisms are frequent sources of flawed premises. One example is the inference that "kindness is praiseworthy" from the premises "every virtue is praiseworthy" and "kindness is a virtue." This example is fine, because of the two premises, both are generally regarded as true. However, syllogisms have more than one premise, and the more there are the greater the chance that one or more of them is not valid.

Circular Logic

Basically, the problem here is that the argument one intends to defend is presupposed to be true. The conclusion is assumed as a premise, rather than justified. The argument is not proved, just re-stated as if it were true. This fallacy is sometimes called “begging the question.”

Virtue Signaling

Symbolic statements and gestures that convey virtue are frequently used to impart authoritativeness. Who can argue against virtue? Thus, those who signal virtue are attempting to gain stature, both for their own social worthiness and to advance their cause. This also makes the signaler feel good about themselves and self-righteously superior to others. Factual or logical deficiencies in their positions are masked by the signaled virtue. Virtue signaling is commonly weaponized as a common strategy for advancing problematic agendas of politicians, celebrities, and media elites.

Motivation Essential Reads

Remembering Your Sacrifices Helps You Achieve Your Goals

How to Use "Little Treat Culture"

Other Logic Errors

Many cases of specious arguments are based on common mistakes in logic. I have explained some common thinking errors in a post several years ago. Such errors are typically inadvertent, but sometimes they are used deliberately in political discourse to buttress positions.

How can you protect yourself from the specious thinking of others? First, check to make certain you are not just responding emotionally, agreeing because this is what you want to hear. Next, check to see what actual evidence is presented and the likelihood that it is reliable. Look for conflicts of interest and hidden agendas. Finally, try to think of alternative perspectives that have not been presented.