Beyond Logical Fallacies - A Guide to Actually Understanding Arguments
You're Wrong! Move Along! You've Committed a Logical Fallacy! You Aren't Strong, Observe My Research, Truth and Logic Song!
A Guide to Moving Beyond Fallacy Accusations Toward Real Understanding
The Problem We All Recognize
We've all seen it. Someone makes a point in an online discussion, and within minutes, another person swoops in with: "That's a strawman fallacy!" or "Ad hominem! Your argument is invalid!"
The conversation dies. The original person feels dismissed. The fallacy-caller feels intellectually superior. And absolutely nothing gets resolved.
This isn't discourse. It's intellectual combat dressed up as logic. And it's everywhere.
The Hidden Truth About "Logical Fallacies"
Here's what the fallacy-callers don't want you to know: Every logical fallacy is caused by faulty premises — not faulty logic.
Logic doesn't break. What breaks is what's assumed, what's missing, or what's hidden.
Think about it: When someone commits what looks like a logical fallacy, their reasoning usually makes perfect sense to them. They're not suddenly abandoning logic. They're operating from a different set of assumptions than you are.
A Real Example: The "Ad Hominem" That Wasn't
Person A: "I don't trust Dr. Smith's study on climate change because he's been funded by oil companies for the last decade."
Person B: "Ad hominem fallacy! You're attacking the person, not the argument!"
Person C: "Discussion over. Logic wins."
But wait. Let's look at Person A's actual reasoning:
- Premise 1: Financial incentives can influence research outcomes
- Premise 2: Dr. Smith has strong financial incentives to produce certain results
- Premise 3: Therefore, Dr. Smith's research should be evaluated with this bias in mind
That's not illogical. That's actually quite logical given those premises. Person A isn't abandoning reason — they're including context that Person B chose to ignore.
The Missing Premise Principle
What looks like bad logic is usually just a missing premise.
Every time someone seems to be "thinking illogically," they're operating from assumptions that haven't been made explicit. Your job isn't to call out their fallacy. Your job is to understand what they're assuming.
Let's try another example:
Person A: "We shouldn't listen to teenagers about climate policy. They don't have enough life experience."
Person B: "Age-based ad hominem! Logical fallacy!"
But what if Person A's hidden premises are:
- Policy decisions require understanding long-term consequences
- Long-term thinking develops with life experience
- Teenagers haven't had enough time to develop this perspective
Suddenly, Person A's reasoning becomes coherent. You might disagree with their premises, but you can't dismiss their logic.
The Real Question: Not "Is This Logical?" But "What Are They Assuming?"
Here's the shift that changes everything: Instead of asking "What fallacy is this?" start asking "What would have to be true for this argument to make sense?"
This question unlocks understanding. It reveals the hidden structure beneath every argument. And it opens the door to actual dialogue instead of intellectual combat.
Why Humans Are Actually Logical (Yes, Really)
Humans are logical. It's built-in. We don't install logic in a person — we uncover it.
Every act of perception and understanding already follows patterns. When someone seems "irrational," they're usually being perfectly rational within their own framework of assumptions.
Consider "confirmation bias" — the tendency to seek information that confirms what we already believe. Psychologists call this a cognitive flaw. But look at the hidden premises:
- Premise 1: Changing fundamental beliefs is socially and psychologically costly
- Premise 2: Most new information is irrelevant to important decisions
- Premise 3: Time and mental energy are limited resources
- Premise 4: Group cohesion often matters more than abstract truth
Given these premises, seeking confirming evidence is perfectly logical. It's optimized reasoning for a complex social environment.
The Method: How to Surface Hidden Assumptions
Step 1: Pause the Fallacy Reflex When someone's argument seems wrong, resist the urge to name a fallacy. Instead, get curious.
Step 2: Ask the Magic Question "What would have to be true for this argument to make sense?"
Step 3: Listen for the Hidden Premises Most people will reveal their assumptions if you ask with genuine curiosity rather than gotcha energy.
Step 4: Map the Logic Show them (and yourself) how their reasoning works: "So if [premise 1] and [premise 2] are true, then [conclusion] follows logically."
Step 5: Engage with the Actual Disagreement Now you can have a real conversation about whether their premises are accurate, rather than dismissing their logic entirely.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Instead of: "That's a slippery slope fallacy!"
Try: "I see you're concerned that A will lead to Z. What are the steps you're imagining between them?"
Instead of: "Strawman! That's not what I said!"
Try: "I think you're responding to a different version of my argument. Can you tell me what you heard me say?"
Instead of: "False dichotomy! There are other options!"
Try: "You're framing this as either/or. What makes those feel like the only two choices?"
The Deeper Truth: Discourse as a Shared Project
Truth doesn't live in one person. It emerges through relationship. Every conversation is a chance to refine what is real — or distort it.
When you use logical fallacies as weapons, you're abandoning this shared project. You're choosing to dominate rather than discover.
But when you surface hidden assumptions, you're building understanding together. You're mapping the terrain of thought that both of you are navigating.
Why This Matters Now
We live in an age of increasing polarization, where people retreat into echo chambers and dismiss opposing views as "illogical." The fallacy-calling epidemic is making this worse, not better.
But humans are logical. We're not broken. We're not stupid. We're operating from different premises, and most of those premises are hidden.
If we can learn to surface assumptions instead of calling out fallacies, we can start having real conversations again. We can disagree without dismissing. We can understand without agreeing.
The Promise
This isn't just about winning arguments or being right. It's about something deeper: the possibility of genuine understanding across difference.
When you stop looking for fallacies and start looking for hidden premises, something remarkable happens. The person across from you stops being an opponent and becomes a collaborator in the project of figuring out what's true.
That's not just better discourse. That's better humanity.
This approach doesn't require anyone to abandon their beliefs or admit they're wrong. It just requires curiosity about what others are assuming. And that curiosity might be the most radical act of all.
