Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary

Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept, idea, or something that is not concrete, as if it were a concrete, tangible object. While reification is common and often acceptable in everyday language and literature, using it in logical reasoning or rhetoric can be misleading and is usually considered a fallacy.

Examples of Reification:

1. "A computer is like a brain. It can make intuitive leaps as well."
   • This example mistakenly attributes human-like intuition to computers, which do not possess such abstract capabilities.
2. "The Boston Matrix tells us that our product range has a cash cow, two question marks, and a dog. We should remove one question mark and the dog."
   • Here, the Boston Matrix, a conceptual business tool, is treated as if it could actively communicate and make decisions.
3. "Alan is a god amongst men. He will know you better than you know yourself. He will be able to heal you with a single touch."
   • This statement reifies Alan as a deity with supernatural abilities, which is an exaggerated and concrete representation of his qualities.

In logical reasoning and rhetoric, reification can distort the truth and lead to faulty conclusions. It’s important to distinguish between metaphorical language and precise, factual statements to avoid this fallacy.

An ancient fallacy that says whenever something goes wrong, there's always someone other than oneself to blame. Although this fallacy sometimes is a practical denial of randomness or chance itself, today it is more often a mere insurance-driven business decision.

Example:
"I don't care if it was an accident! Somebody with deep pockets is gonna pay for this!"

A particularly corrupt and cynical example of scapegoating is the fallacy of Blaming the Victim, in which one falsely casts the blame for one's own evil or questionable actions on those affected. In extreme cases, this can also be described as coercion or extortion.

Meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely".

What often happens here is that the general rule being used is either assumed to have a wider scope (being more general) than is reasonable, or that it is simply mismatched with the case that it is being used to cover.

We have a deep need to explain things that happen, which leads to many people accepting a general rule as explanation for a specific case, even when that rule clearly does not apply. A convenient Secundum quid may thus be used deliberately when there is no general rule available.

A series of statements that have a superficial connection with one another, and which lead into what is often a rather far-fetched conclusion.

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences.

Example:

If we ban smoking, then people will start taking soft drugs and then move onto hard drugs, and the crime rate will go up and up. We should therefore prevent crime by allowing smoking.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

Examples:

1. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
2. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
3. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
   Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

The style over substance fallacy occurs when an argument is judged or accepted based on its presentation rather than its content. This fallacy places undue emphasis on the eloquence, appearance, or delivery of the message instead of the actual evidence and logic supporting it.

This fallacy can mislead people into believing a claim is true or valid simply because it is presented in a polished, attractive, or authoritative manner. While style and presentation can enhance communication, they should not overshadow the importance of solid reasoning and factual evidence.

Examples:

Charismatic Speaker: "The candidate gave an incredibly moving and passionate speech, so he must have the best policies."
Here, the judgment is based on the speaker's style rather than the actual content and viability of the policies being proposed.

• Flashy Presentation: "The company's new product must be revolutionary because the launch event had amazing special effects and a dynamic speaker."
  In this case, the product is being judged based on the impressive presentation rather than its actual features and benefits.

Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent is hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.

Example:
The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the template:

1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore, X is false.